Oral
Answers to
Questions

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Prisons: Population

Alistair Carmichael: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the prison population.

Michael Gove: By making our prisons places of rehabilitation, we hope to reduce reoffending and thus, in due course, reduce the prison population.

Alistair Carmichael: I am sure that that is an aspiration with which we can all agree.
The independent review established by the Prison Reform Trust and chaired by Lord Laming found that up to 50% of all young people in custody had been in care at some point in their lives. What plans has the Secretary of State to reduce the number of looked-after children who end up in custody?

Michael Gove: The right hon. Gentleman has made a characteristically acute point. A disproportionate number of those who find themselves in contact with the criminal justice system and subsequently in custody are children who have been in care. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is introducing a series of reforms to enhance the quality of social work and ensure that looked-after children are better cared for, but we in the Ministry of Justice also have a responsibility. We will shortly be publishing our conclusions on the review of youth justice by Charlie Taylor, which will say more about how we can help some of our most troubled young people.

Philip Davies: In 2002, there were only 46 Polish people in our prisons; today there are 983. Back then, there were only 50 prisoners from Romania; today there are 635. The same is true of many European Union countries, particularly those in eastern Europe.
If we want to reduce the prison population, would it not be a good idea to stop free movement of people—which has become rather more like free movement of criminals—into the United Kingdom, so that these criminals do not come into the UK in the first place before being sent to prison?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend has made a characteristically robust point. I am speaking from  the Government Front Bench, and I must represent Government policy accurately, but I can remind Members  that on 23 June people will have an opportunity to cast their votes, and pungent voices like that of my hon. Friend will, I am sure, weigh with them as they decide how to do so.

John Bercow: As opposed to shy shrinking violets like the right hon. Gentleman. I presume that that is what he had in mind; I was sort of reading between the lines.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has a point. The prisoner transfer arrangement with EU countries has been painfully slow—only 95 have been transferred—and at the end of the year Poland’s derogation will cease. Has the Secretary of State begun the process of looking at what will happen after that?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee is right to remind us that prison transfer agreements have not always worked as they were originally envisaged, but my hon. Friend the Prisons Minister has been working closely with the Home Office, and there are 50 Polish prisoners whom we hope to expedite when the derogation expires.

Steve Brine: While putting a figure on it may not be wise, does the Lord Chancellor agree that if his prison reform policy is successful, its ultimate conclusion must be far fewer people in prison and far better life chances?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, in two respects. It would be wrong to set an arbitrary target, but we intend to ensure that all our policies work—not just our policies relating to rehabilitation and prisons, but some of the broader policies that were touched on by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) in respect of young people. If all those policies work and the Government’s broader life chances agenda is implemented in full, we should reduce offending, and also ensure that our society is fairer and more socially just.

Chris Evans: Does the Secretary of State agree that one way of reducing the prison population would be to conduct a serious review of short-term sentencing? It provides no drug rehabilitation or educational programmes for prisoners who are shortly to be released, but simply sends them back into the system over and over again.

Michael Gove: There is evidence that some short sentences do not have the rehabilitative effect that we all want to see. We want to ensure that all those who are sent into custody by the courts—and we respect their right to decide what sentence is appropriate for a crime —receive the support that they need in order not to offend again.

Prisons: Education

Wendy Morton: What steps his Department is taking to improve education in prisons.

Lucy Frazer: What steps his Department is taking to improve education in prisons.

Pauline Latham: What steps his Department is taking to improve education in prisons.

Seema Kennedy: What steps his Department is taking to improve education in prisons.

Andrew Selous: We want prisons to be places of rigorous education and high ambition. Dame Sally Coates’s review “Unlocking potential” was published last month, and we have accepted all its recommendations in principle. We will be giving control of education budgets to prison governors, so that they can choose their education providers and hold them to account for the service that they give.

Wendy Morton: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that since 99% of criminals will eventually be released from prison, we can only cut crime and improve public safety if we better rehabilitate offenders in prison?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want an unremitting emphasis on rehabilitation. Reoffending has been too high for too long. That is why we are investing £1.3 billion over the next five years to transform the prison estate and give prisoners the help they need to turn their lives around.

Lucy Frazer: The Coates review that the Minister referred to says that the employment prospects for those on short-term sentences are three times worse for women than for men, with only one in 10 women finding a job on release. What plans does he have to improve the prospects of employment for women?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically perceptive point, and I think a large part of the answer is to encourage more employers to follow the example of Max Spielmann and Greggs, who have set up academies at HMPs New Hall and Drake Hall. Those academies provide work in prison and ongoing support after release, and if more employers did that with women in mind we would have more success in this area.

Pauline Latham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is often those who have struggled or dropped out of school and ended up in the criminal justice system whom we must ensure have the skills they need while in our care and afterwards?

Andrew Selous: Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Giving prisoners a second chance to learn to read, become more numerate and get the skills to hold down a job is central to rehabilitation.

Seema Kennedy: What plans are there to enhance the educational programmes at Garth and Wymott prisons in my constituency?

Andrew Selous: Giving control of the education budget to the governors of HMP Garth and HMP Wymott and holding them to account for the outcomes, as well as the introduction of personal learning plans in a consistent digital format that follows the prisoner around the estate, will absolutely drive improvement.

Helen Jones: Does the Minister accept that, although these plans are welcome, they will not work without the right number of prison officers to ensure that prisoners are out of their cells and have continuity of learning? Since there are now 7,000 fewer prison officers than in 2010, how does he expect to implement these plans without more recruitment?

Andrew Selous: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the incredible work that our prison officers do day in, day out. I can tell her that since 1 January 2015 we have appointed 2,830 additional prison officers—a net increase of 530—and that the vacancy rate is now 2.5%, whereas at the start of last year it was 5.2%. We will carry on recruiting at this rate.

Gavin Robinson: The Minister knows that we educate to rehabilitate and offer life-improving opportunities for those who find themselves in prison. The Minister is also seized of the information that we have shared previously about the impediment of the lack of provision of insurance for employers who want to offer opportunities when someone is released. Can the Minister update us on the progress he has made on removing that barrier to progress?

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for continuing to raise this issue. A particularly shocking case was drawn to my attention the other day: the household insurance of a family had been raised by hundreds and hundreds of pounds because the father had gone to prison, which put huge pressure on the family’s budget. I continue to take up that issue and others with the Association of British Insurers.

Cat Smith: The chief inspector’s report into HMP Wormwood Scrubs found that most prisoners had fewer than two hours a day out of their cells and were making very poor use of the educational facilities available. How far would the Minister say that is reflected across the prison estate?

Andrew Selous: We have fewer and fewer restricted regimes across the estate, but the whole thrust of what the Secretary of State and I are trying to do is increase the time out of cell and put education at the heart of the prison regime. I want prisoners to learn not only when they go to the education classrooms, but during their association periods and in their cells, so that we have a whole prison learning experience.

Rob Marris: I praise and thank the Government for raising the profile of this issue. One thing that sometimes disrupts the education of prisoners is the loss of their records when they are transferred; that results in dislocation. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government propose to take to smooth the transition when a prisoner transfers, so that he or she can continue their education?

Andrew Selous: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically gracious and thoughtful point. He might have heard me say a moment ago that we were bringing in a personal learning plan—the initials PLP will mean something to Labour Members. It will be introduced in a consistent digital format that will follow prisoners as they move around the prison estate.

Karen Lumley: Does my hon. Friend agree that Hewell prison in Redditch would benefit from a Teach First-style scheme for graduates to ensure better prospects on release?

Andrew Selous: Yes, absolutely. That is one of a number of recommendations of the review by Dame Sally Coates. We are looking actively at how we can implement her inspirational vision, which did so much to transform the teaching profession.

Margaret Ritchie: Will the Minister tell me when he intends to meet the new Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland and when they will have an opportunity to discuss a range of issues including the Open University’s distance learning programme, which is an important rehabilitation and educational tool for prisoners and the wider society in Northern Ireland?

Andrew Selous: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know that she takes an ongoing and serious interest in these issues. The Secretary of State tells me that he has already written to the new Northern Ireland Justice Minister and issued an invitation to her. We will learn from and co-operate as fully as possible with the prison service in Northern Ireland.

EU Membership: Human Rights

Gavin Newlands: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on the protection of human rights of UK citizens of the UK leaving the EU.

Dominic Raab: The Government’s assessment of fundamental rights is set out in their policy paper, “Rights and obligations of European Union membership”, which was published on 14 April.

Gavin Newlands: I thank the Minister for his answer, but his Secretary of State wants to leave the EU and the Home Secretary wants to leave the European convention on human rights, so should we take it that when this Government are finished, the UK will no longer be party to any international human rights treaties? Is that really the message that the UK Government want to send to the rest of the world?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I think he probably knows by now that, in regard to the plans being worked up for the Bill of Rights, it is not the Government’s policy to withdraw from the convention. We have said that we cannot rule that out forever and a day, but that is not our proposal now, and it is absolutely not the case that we would withdraw from a whole range of other international human rights treaties if we left the EU.

David Nuttall: Does the Minister agree that if we stay in the European Union the real risk is that, rather than human rights policy being determined by this House and adjudicated on by British courts, it will be decided by the Brussels bureaucrats and the European Court of Justice, and that before we know it, prisoners will be given the right to vote?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend makes his powerful point in an eloquent way. There is a recognition across the House, on whichever side of the wider debate, that some of the laws that have come out of the EU have been damaging to civil liberties, whether involving the European arrest warrant and the injustice inflicted on my constituent Colin Dines, or the right to be forgotten, which has a muzzling effect on free speech. There are certainly areas of concern, on whichever side of the wider debate Members are.

Joanna Cherry: Gender equality is recognised as a fundamental human right by the European Union, and a report from the TUC has identified 20 key areas in which European Union law has enhanced the rights of working women, often in the face of opposition from Tory Governments. How does the Minister propose to ensure that these hard-won employment rights are protected in the event of a Brexit?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her question. First, the vast majority of equal pay rights and women’s and workplace rights have been introduced by this House, by elected representatives accountable to the British people. I am surprised that she believes that the human rights and wider rights of our citizens and her constituents are better protected at EU level by bureaucrats and unaccountable politicians rather than by hon. Members in this House who are accountable to the British people.

Joanna Cherry: As the Minister well knows, we did not get equal pay for work of equal value until the European Court intervened, and we have wide maternity rights only because of European directives. The Prime Minister’s former adviser Steve Hilton, who supports leaving the EU, said in 2011 that maternity leave should be abolished. Does the Minister wish to add his voice to that particular pungent voice? If not, which employment rights would he abolish in the event of a Brexit?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that, but I do not think that any of the factual assertions she has made are right. There is absolutely no plan such as that she suggests, and I do not support abolishing paternity rights; in fact, when I was a Back Bencher under the last Government and this point was raised, I was fully in favour of transferable parental leave. She is mistaken in what she says, but what is most striking is that the message she is sending to her constituents and the wider citizens of this country is that they should have no faith in her ability and that of the Scottish National party in this House to protect their rights.

Ranil Jayawardena: The convention was agreed in the 1950s, Britain joined the EU in the ’70s and the Human Rights Act was agreed in the ’90s. Twenty years on, does the Minister  agree that it is important that we revisit all these papers, because rights were not invented by pieces of paper? Instead we should have a British Bill of Rights.

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right and makes an important point about the future direction of human rights laws in this country. We are parties to the European convention on human rights, and that is a different and separate issue from the EU. Our regime is based around our membership of the European convention, and considerable legal uncertainty is created if the Luxembourg Court starts to interfere and create risks and wider uncertainty about which rules apply and how.

Andrew Slaughter: The Minister may wish this was not the case, but in fact the EU has provided and protected employment and human rights for part-time workers and working parents, with paid holidays, maximum working hours, measures to tackle discrimination at work, and time off to care for sick children. Does he think that those rights are worth protecting? Or does he agree with the billionaire stockbroker who is funding the Brexit campaign, Peter Hargreaves, who thinks we should leave the EU because
“we will be insecure again. And insecurity is fantastic”?

Dominic Raab: It is thunder and lightning but it does not provide much clarity on the issue; the bottom line is that the hon. Gentleman has little faith in Labour fearsomely defending workers’ rights. Whichever side someone is on in this House or in this debate, they should want to uphold the right of this House to make those finely balanced decisions on employment regulation and make sure that they are tailored to the precise needs of this country, not those of bureaucrats and other vested interests in Brussels.

EU Prisoner Transfer Directive

Philip Hollobone: How many non-UK EU nationals (a) the UK has ever returned to prison in their own EU country under the EU prisoner transfer directive and (b) are in a UK prison.

Andrew Selous: One hundred and two prisoners have so far been transferred from England and Wales under the EU prisoner transfer agreement. There were 4,111 EU nationals detained in prisons in England and Wales on 31 March 2016, with 2,967 serving an immediate custodial sentence. The transfer of prisoners from Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved authorities.

Philip Hollobone: I was expecting a low number but the number of EU transferees back to their country of origin is absolutely pathetic. With the number of EU nationals in our prisons approaching 40% of the foreign national prisoner population, is this not just another example of the European Union, through its directives, promising us the earth but, in effect, giving the British people the square root of naff all?

Andrew Selous: The main mechanism by which we get foreign national offenders out of our jails, which we are very keen to do, is the early removal system, which transfers out about 1,800 a year. The European prisoner transfer agreement is therefore in addition to the early  release scheme, but it may be helpful to my hon. Friend if I give him the figures. The transfer agreement was implemented only in 2013, and we got 19 out in 2014, 38 out in 2015 and 29 out in 2016, to date, with a roughly similar number awaiting transfer.

Kit Malthouse: Is the identity of prisoners who are returned to their countries of origin registered with UK Visas and Immigration, so that when they attempt re-entry to the UK they can be identified? Even if that were the case, is it right that we could not prevent their re-entry unless we were to leave the EU?

Andrew Selous: If a prisoner is deported, they are not allowed to return to the United Kingdom during the period of their sentence.

Jo Stevens: Is it not the case, as the former Chancellor and Justice Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), put it, that if we left the European Union we would go back to a system of prisoner transfer where we had absolutely no ability to deport anybody to their country of origin unless we could persuade the Government of that country to accept them? Why would we risk losing that progress?

Andrew Selous: The hon. Lady is right in that if this country leaves the European Union, we will lose the compulsory prisoner transfer agreement that we currently have, and that will cause issues when it comes to trying to return the current EU prisoners in our prisons.

Jo Stevens: Does the Minister agree that rather than sniping from the sidelines on these issues, we should be playing our full part in co-ordinated international security frameworks such as the prisoner transfer agreement, the European arrest warrant, Eurojust, the body that leads judicial co-operation between member states, and the Schengen information system, as all of them ensure that our EU membership continues to help protect us against crime, terrorism and threats to our security—yet more reasons to vote to remain on 23 June? [Laughter.]

John Bercow: Order. I do not know what the source of merriment is among the little troika on the Back Benches—the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope), for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). I do not know whether some sort of powder has been applied to them, but they are in a very happy state.

Andrew Selous: This Government want to see as many compulsory prisoner transfer agreements as possible, because it is hard work trying to transfer all foreign nationals, of whatever nationality, out of prisons in England and Wales. Therefore, all compulsory transfer arrangements are useful. Currently, we have them with all members of the European Union, with the exception of Ireland and Bulgaria.

Prison Reform

David Mackintosh: What progress his Department has made on plans for reform prisons.

Michael Gove: In the debate on the Queen’s Speech, the Government announced the creation of six early adopter reform prisons. The governors of those prisons will have unprecedented freedom to run their prisons and find better ways to rehabilitate offenders.

David Mackintosh: Will my right hon. Friend tell me how we can improve the transition for prison leavers to employment and their access to benefits and housing?

Michael Gove: One thing we can do particularly effectively is ensure that prisons, whether reform prisons or others, have close and effective working relationships with the community rehabilitation companies that were instituted by my predecessor and are doing so much to ensure that all prisoners, whatever the length of their sentence, receive support on release.

David Hanson: Given that the Justice Secretary has already announced the six prisons that are to be reform prisons, but given that he has not yet announced the White Paper or indeed published the prison reform Bill, will he tell the House when he will do the latter, because at the moment he is putting the cart before the horse?

Michael Gove: It is important that we give the governors of these prisons as much freedom as possible. It is also important that they are in place now to explore some of the additional freedoms operationally without that need for legislation. In the autumn, we hope to publish a White Paper and the legislation alongside it.

David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the additional funding allocated to reduce violence in prisons will be given to governors to make sure that it is spent on schemes that will have a real impact?

Michael Gove: It absolutely will. The effective team managing the National Offender Management Service under the superb public servant Michael Spurr has found an additional £10 million to help mitigate the effects of prisoner violence and to reduce violence overall. That money will go direct to the front line.

Valerie Vaz: One area of reform should be to stop pregnant women having to give birth in prison. I know that the Government are committed to that, but can we consider carrying out a pilot study so that women do not have to give birth in front of unnamed guards?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes a vital point. We are looking at how female offenders are treated overall. One thing we need to do—I know that this is not a view universally held by all my hon. Friends on the Back Benches—is to think hard about how we can reduce the female population in prison, and treat women who are in custody more sensitively.

Bob Neill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that reform prisons are an important part of a broader package of reform of penal and criminal justice policy, so that we not only make better use of the time of those who are in prison, but  make sure that we reduce the total number of people going to prison by finding an effective and genuinely successful means of dealing with offending in the community?

Michael Gove: The Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice is absolutely right. In the same way that the creation of NHS foundation trusts was not the only aspect of reform of the national health service, and the creation of academy schools was not the only aspect of reform of the education system, the creation of reform prisons is not a change in isolation. It is part of a broader change to the criminal justice system, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that part of that is diverting people from custody when appropriate.

Cheryl Gillan: When developing reform prisons, will the Secretary of State take into account the experience of Feltham young offenders unit, which has become the first autism-accredited prison in the country? I led a cross-party visit by the all-party parliamentary group on autism to the prison yesterday, and saw how that was helping to reduce violence and helping with rehabilitation. Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that each reform prison will work towards accreditation for autism and will eventually be able to achieve that accreditation before it begins to operate?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner for individuals living with autism, and I will absolutely ensure that reform prisons and others learn from Feltham. A disproportionate number of people in custody live with various mental health and other problems, and many of them are on the autistic spectrum.

John Bercow: Well done.

Officials: Guidelines

Andrew Gwynne: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department’s guidelines for officials of his Department who have moved to work in the private sector.

Mike Penning: The Ministry of Justice and other Government Departments have clear rules and governance in place around the standards of conduct for current and former civil servants. All permanent civil servants are covered by the Cabinet Office guidelines on business appointment rules.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but he will know that in March The Mail on Sunday uncovered evidence of former MOJ civil servants boasting of their links to Government while working for private firms to secure multimillion-pound contracts, both in Britain and abroad. What investigations have been made into those allegations, and will the Minister make a commitment to the House to publish in full any findings by the review?

Mike Penning: There was an investigation after those reports in the press, but no impropriety was found. I am more than happy for the hon. Gentleman to meet my  officials in the Department. If I can publish the review, I will—I understand that it was an internal inquiry—and if I cannot do so, I will explain why. If not, meetings will take place.

Glen Parva

Alberto Costa: What plans he has for the future of Her Majesty’s prison and young offenders institution of Glen Parva.

Andrew Selous: From later this month, Her Majesty’s prison and young offender institution Glen Parva will begin to accommodate adult prisoners. This change supports our aim to use the existing estate as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Alberto Costa: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he tell me what the staff ratios are for young adults in Glen Parva, and what they are expected to be once adult prisoners come to the prison? If the answer is not readily available, will he give it to me in a letter by the end of next week?

Andrew Selous: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not have that specific information. I will certainly write to him with it.

John Bercow: And put it in the Library—well done.

Prisoner Release: Employment

Alan Mak: What progress his Department has made on ensuring that offenders find employment on release from prison.

Andrew Selous: One part of my job that most inspires me is meeting businesses and trade bodies to talk about the benefits of employing offenders on release. Following the Prime Minister’s announcement of changes to recruitment practices for the civil service, I am keen to encourage other employers to “ban the box” when recruiting too. This fits alongside our work to implement the recommendations of the Coates review and our announcement of six reform prisons.

Alan Mak: I thank the Minister for his answer. The first Hampshire and Isle of Wight community rehabilitation company women’s centre opened in Havant in 2012, and part of its work involves helping to get women offenders into employment. Will the Minister join me  in congratulating it on its work and will he support  the continued employment of women offenders in the Havant area?

Andrew Selous: Yes, I am very pleased to be able to do exactly that. For that excellent centre to succeed, we need far more employers to step up to the plate and make a commitment to training and hiring ex-offenders.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that there have been some excellent examples of major companies taking on prisoners and training them while they are still in prison? I think in particular of British Gas, which had a wonderful programme in Reading jail. Are there partnerships that we are currently encouraging?

Andrew Selous: Yes. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a serious interest in these issues, that there is a lot to be encouraged about0. I am going around the country talking to employers, often taking them into prisons. I am particularly keen on the academy model, where employers come into prisons and train prisoners there. The prisoners then go out on day release to gain work experience in that business, and as they leave the prison gate they do so with a contract of employment and can go into work. That helps to secure their accommodation and to get their lives back on an even keel.

Bob Blackman: One problem faced by ex-offenders is not having a secure home to go to once they are released from prison, and as a result they cannot get a job. What further steps can my hon. Friend take to ensure that people leaving prison are leaving for a secure home and can then seek proper employment?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is right to draw the link between accommodation and employment. If more prisoners were able to pay a deposit of perhaps the first month’s rent on leaving prison, that would help. By the same token, if we can get more offers of employment  to prisoners as they come out, they will find it easier to secure accommodation.

Christina Rees: Between now and 2020 the European Union is investing over £9 billion in the UK on skills training and support for those at risk of social exclusion. One example is here in London at Brixton prison: the Bad Boys bakery project, which trains inmates to become bakers and find work when they are released. As the Justice Secretary believes in giving inmates a second chance and has talked about the importance of such schemes, will he use his loaf and encourage people to vote remain on 23 June?

Andrew Selous: Like the hon. Lady, I am a huge fan of schemes such as the Bad Boys bakery, which I have visited in Brixton. I can still remember the smell of the delicious lemon cake wafting out of the bakery when I visited it. More seriously, when we see the purpose and engagement of prisoners when they are given a real opportunity to do work in prison that offers the prospect of a job on release, they do engage, and we need to see a lot more of that.

John Bercow: Bad Boys bakers no doubt felt very privileged to be visited by the hon. Gentleman.

Human Rights Act

Catherine McKinnell: What progress he has made on proposals for reform of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Dominic Raab: We will bring forward our proposals for a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act. We have made good progress on the development of our plans, with input from practitioners, non-governmental organisations, academics and many others right across the UK. Our proposals will be announced in due course and we shall consult fully on them.

Catherine McKinnell: The Minister says that plans will be published in due course, but plans to repeal the Human Rights Act were announced in the Conservative manifestos in both 2010 and 2015 and in the Queen’s Speech in 2015 and 2016. Can he please explain why his Department has so far failed to publish any proposals or begin a consultation on those plans?

Dominic Raab: I appreciate that the hon. Lady is eager to engage in a detailed, substantive debate on human rights. Distinguished people in the Opposition, from Lord Irvine through to the current shadow Justice Secretary, have talked about the defects in the Human Rights Act. They have made compelling points and we intend to act on them. I look forward to debating the matter with the hon. Lady in due course.

Lewes Prison

Maria Caulfield: What steps are being taken to improve safety and reduce violence at HM Prison Lewes.

Andrew Selous: Improving safety is a top priority and the governor at Her Majesty’s Prison Lewes has put plans in place to address safety issues, including the provision of additional training for staff to better support vulnerable prisoners. Nationally, a violence reduction taskforce has been created to support and challenge establishments with a high rate of violence. An additional £10 million has been allocated to those prisons facing the greatest safety challenges.

Maria Caulfield: I am sure the Minister has seen the recent independent report which highlights significant security issues not just for inmates, but for prison officers. Will he give his assurance that he will look at the findings in that report and at its recommendations?

Andrew Selous: Yes, I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I believe that she is visiting the prison shortly. We will learn from every report. There is currently a police, coroner, and prisons and probation ombudsman report on a recent incident at HMP Lewes. We will learn from that, and we will continue to make improvements in this important area.

Liz McInnes: It is not just Lewes prison that has problems with violence. I have a constituent in Frankland prison whose mother is in daily fear that she will one day get a phone call to say that her son has been murdered in prison. What will the Minister do to help prisoners who live in daily fear for their lives because of prisoner-on-prisoner violence, with the consequent anguish caused to their families?

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. The Secretary of State has said very clearly that reducing violence in our prisons is our top operational priority, and he has recently allocated an additional £10 million to this. She will know that a lot of the violence is caused by terrible new psychoactive substances such as Spice and Black Mamba coming into prisons. We have now made them illegal, thanks  to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister  for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims on the  Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, and that is a help. We will shortly be rolling out world-leading testing, which will also make a difference. I draw a very clear link between the drugs and the violence.

Employment Tribunal Fees

Dawn Butler: What recent progress he has made on the review of the effect of the introduction of employment tribunal fees.

Angela Crawley: When he expects the review of employment tribunal fees to be completed.

Dominic Raab: The review will report in due course, and it will assess how effective the introduction of employment tribunal fees has been in the achievement of the original objectives.

Dawn Butler: So we still await the official report from the Government, but it is obvious that tribunal fees have affected the number of cases being brought, especially by women. In 2013 there were 18,398; in 2015 there were just 6,423. Will the Minister elaborate on those figures? Will he also elaborate on the multiple cases brought by men? Were those men from the private sector or the public sector? Were they white-collar or blue-collar workers?

Dominic Raab: The assessment will look at the impact on protected characteristics, including the ones the hon. Lady mentioned. It is only fair and reasonable that those using tribunals make some contribution to the cost where they are able to. It is not right that the whole bill for employment tribunals, which is about £71 million per year, should be picked up by taxpayers, so we are looking to strike the right balance. There is, of course, a system of fee remissions to protect vulnerable workers, and we have taken steps to raise awareness of that scheme. We have also taken steps to encourage voluntary conciliation, which is a good way of settling disputes away from the tense, stressful and costly environment of a courtroom.

Angela Crawley: I received assurances from the Government that the post-implementation review of tribunal fees would be published last year. We now find ourselves six months beyond that deadline, and we are still waiting. Evidence suggests that tribunal fees do act as a barrier to justice and that they are compounding pregnancy and maternity discrimination. While we wait for the Government to get a move on, women continue to be discriminated against daily. When will the Minister finally publish the post-implementation review and scrap tribunal fees completely?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Lady makes some powerful points. We are going to publish the assessment shortly. It is also right to point out, though, that we are seeking to divert people away from costly and often acrimonious tribunal hearings. Fees are a part of that, as is pushing in the direction of conciliation. Although conciliation is not compulsory, I am sure she will be reassured to know that parties agree to participate in it in 75% of cases, and satisfaction levels are very high.

Jonathan Djanogly: Does the Minister agree that employment tribunal fees have played an important part in reducing the threat of litigation that hangs over businesses, and particularly small businesses? Does he agree that they have also played an important part in the resurgence of our economy and job creation?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend has a lot of experience of this issue, and he is absolutely right to look at its dual impact, particularly on small businesses. However, it is also right to say that this is not a binary, zero-sum game, and we attach huge importance to the fact  that early conciliation has been used by more than 80,000 litigants in the first year, with over 80% of those participating reporting that they were satisfied with the outcome.

John Cryer: I have met many constituents who say that they will not pursue their cases to tribunal because of the introduction of fees. Does that not suggest that the existence of the fees acts as a deterrent?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but we also have to factor in the proportion of those who have been diverted into conciliation. In resolving disputes like this, alternative dispute settlement will often be the best outcome for resolving the dispute, but also, in particular, for claimants who would otherwise struggle to bear the costs.

Bill of Rights

Margaret Ferrier: When his Department plans to publish its consultation on a British Bill of Rights.

Dominic Raab: As I have already said, we are looking to report on the review in due course. It will assess how effective the introduction of the fees has been in achieving all the different objectives we laid out.

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the Minister for his answer. However, last week the Government amended the Investigatory Powers Bill to include a duty on public authorities to have regard to the requirements of the Human Rights Act. Does this mean that the Government’s plans to repeal the Human Rights Act have now been shelved?

Dominic Raab: No, we are absolutely resolute about replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights, and we are working on those proposals. The hon. Lady will not have to wait long to be able to engage on the substance rather than some of the scare stories flying around in the media.

Personal Injury Law

Mary Glindon: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of planned changes to personal injury law and whiplash claims on access to justice.

Shailesh Vara: The Government remain concerned about the number and cost of whiplash claims, particularly   the impact on insurance premiums, and have announced robust new measures to tackle the problem. We will consult on the detail in due course, and the consultation will be accompanied by a thorough impact assessment.

Mary Glindon: How does the Minister respond to my constituents who have genuine concerns about the evidence base for the proposed reforms, and believe that they are unjust and will not deliver the right and proper compensation for people who were injured through negligence?

Shailesh Vara: The Government’s proposed reforms will ensure that the current cost of £2 billion annually for whiplash claims should be reduced to £1 billion for the insurance industry. They will also ensure that the average person’s insurance premium should go down by up  to £50.

David Mowat: In the UK, 80% of road traffic accidents generate a whiplash claim; in France, 3% of road traffic accidents generate a whiplash claim. In the UK, whiplash claims are increasing as accidents decrease; in France, it is the other way round. Insurance premiums in the UK are 50% higher, meaning that many young people cannot afford insurance. Will the Government act to get this sorted out?

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely right to say that it is important, to benefit all our constituents, that we deal with this. The way to do so is through our proposed reforms, on which there will be a consultation in the not too distant future. That will ensure that premiums go down.

Stalking

Richard Graham: What plans he has to review sentencing guidelines related to stalking offences.

Dominic Raab: Sentencing guidelines are issued by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales. I understand that it has plans to consider the stalking guidelines next year.

Richard Graham: The Minister has read the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and me on the case for extending the maximum sentences for stalking. He will also have heard Lily Allen say last week of her stalker, “You can put him behind bars but he’ll be out soon and waiting there for his victim.” What can be done to assess the case for extending the maximum sentence for a few very dangerous stalkers who severely damage the lives of their victims?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend, who makes his point in a particularly lyrical way. He knows that we are looking at a range of issues around sentencing. It is important that those are considered in the round to make sure that we better protect the public and improve reoffending levels. I read the excellent report produced by my hon. Friends on sentences for stalking, and we are giving it very serious consideration.

Topical Questions

Tom Elliott: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: A number of distinguished figures were recognised in Her Majesty’s birthday honours list at the weekend, but one of them I took particular pleasure in seeing recognised—Mr Elroy Palmer, who works for the St Giles Trust. He is an ex-offender who now devotes his time to helping young people to avoid crime and make constructive use of their lives. Last year, Elroy spoke at the Conservative party conference, where he received a standing ovation. His testimony, his experience and his example show what can be achieved if an individual in custody decides to change their life. His life has changed immeasurably for the better, and he has changed the lives of others immeasurably for the better as well.

Tom Elliott: I add my congratulations to those recognised in the honours list last week. Is there any requirement on Her Majesty’s Government under article 2 of the European convention on human rights to initiate a new coroner’s inquest if there is any potential state involvement and if a further inquest is requested by the family member of the deceased?

Michael Gove: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue; he gave me notice that it was of concern to him and to many people in Northern Ireland. Our legislation provides that there must be an inquest in cases where there may have been state involvement in the death of any individual. In such cases, the coroner investigates not only who died, and where and when, but the broader circumstances of the death. This wider investigation ensures compliance with the European convention on human rights. There may be an inquiry, instead of an inquest, if the coroner’s investigation cannot ascertain all of those matters.

Maria Caulfield: Roughly 20% of prisoners have spent some time in care. I have met some young care leavers in my constituency and prison is often seen as an attractive option because it provides a roof over their heads and a hot meal each day. What measures are this Government taking to ensure that care leavers have better options in life than prison?

Andrew Selous: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very important issue. The Government have asked Sir Martin Narey to review residential care for looked-after children, and some of his recommendations will touch on the criminal justice system. The care and supervision of young offenders in custody is not good enough, which is why the Government have asked Charlie Taylor, a former chief executive of the National College for Teaching and Leadership, to lead a review of the whole of the youth justice system, and that final report will be out shortly.

Andrew Slaughter: So far today we have asked the Secretary of State about the risks that Brexit poses to workers’ rights and human rights, to the  European arrest warrant and the prisoner transfer directive, and even to his cherished prison reform programme, but we have had no answer from him on any of them. Are not the Government and the Opposition right to say that those who want to protect human rights, strengthen national security and make our country safer should vote remain on 23 June?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for speaking from the heart with such passion for the European Union. It is not a view that is universally shared, I have to say, by Labour voters, but I respect  the way in which he put his case. I am speaking on behalf of the Government at this Dispatch Box, and the Government’s position is clear: some of us as Ministers have been given leave to depart from that position. I have done so outside this House, but I do not intend to dwell on the issue now.

Andrew Slaughter: Let me have one more try. The Justice Secretary is right to recognise that human rights and our membership of the EU are linked; it is just that we think that that is a good thing, and he thinks that it is a bad thing. Is not the choice on Thursday week between working with our closest neighbours to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, and his recipe for bleak isolationism, which has him, in the words of Lord Heseltine, marching
“to the drum of Farage, Trump and Le Pen”?

Michael Gove: I entirely understand why the hon. Gentleman makes the case in the way that he does, and he does so with great force and fluency, as he always does. Whatever the decision of the British people on 23 June, I have confidence in them to ensure that workers’ rights and human rights, friendly co-operation and the principles of decency and fair treatment for all will be preserved come what may, because I have ultimate confidence in the British people and their elected representatives to defend our democracy and to safeguard decent values. I would not for a moment suggest that anyone in this House, whether they are advocating a remain vote or a leave vote, is anything other than someone who wants to uphold democracy and the rights that all of us have inherited.

Derek Thomas: What support is, or will be, available to people with mental health problems in the criminal justice system?

Andrew Selous: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this extremely serious point. He may know that mental health provision in prisons is provided by NHS England and by local health boards in Wales, and that it is based on locally assessed need. All prisons have procedures in place to identify, manage and support people with such health needs. We are, however, keen to give governors increased freedoms and flexibilities to be able to respond to the needs of their populations, and we are actively talking to Ministers in the Department of Health about this issue.

David Hanson: Will the prisons Minister simply confirm that, despite his recruitment efforts, there are still 7,000 fewer prison officers in post today than there were in May 2010? Will he simply  say yes?

Andrew Selous: I do not deny what the right hon. Gentleman, a distinguished former prisons Minister, says. However, I repeat to the House that since 1 January 2015, we have appointed 2,830 extra prison officers, which is a net increase of 530 since the start of last year. I also point out that the average prison population in 2010 was 84,725, while, as of 3 June, it is 85,291, so it has in fact remained reasonably stable over the past six years.

Alan Mak: Hampshire’s new police and crime commissioner, Michael Lane, has put restorative justice at the heart of his agenda. Will the Minister join me in supporting that policy to ensure that victims of crime are never ignored in Havant or across Hampshire?

Mike Penning: This is the first opportunity that I have had on the Floor of the House to congratulate Michael on his election. There were excellent results  in the PCC elections around the country, particularly in relation to turnout. I was very conscious of the part that restorative justice played in the campaign. Restorative justice is an important component of helping victims, but we must make sure that victims want to be part of it and that it is not forced on them in any way.

Alan Brown: With regard to employment tribunals, does the Minister have any plans to include personal independence payments in the calculations for assessing eligibility?

Shailesh Vara: As far as employment tribunals are concerned—as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), said earlier—the review will be published shortly. It is a fact that a lot of people who would previously have gone to employment tribunals are now going to the ACAS conciliatory procedure. We will certainly make sure that all the issues referred to are covered in the review.

Maggie Throup: At Justice Questions in March, I raised serious concerns about the systematic failure of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in relation to a case in my constituency. From my experience of dealing with this case, it has become clear that the self-governing SRA needs reform both to improve accountability and to restore public confidence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this issue so that, together, we can bring forward proposals to ensure solicitors are regulated properly and independently?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Solicitors Regulation Authority is an independent body. If she wishes to have a meeting, I am certainly happy to do so.

John Nicolson: Will the Secretary of State be good enough to tell us, in the wake of the atrocity in Orlando, what steps he is taking to monitor and address homophobic hate crime against lesbian and gay people in this country?

Michael Gove: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I think everyone in this House will have been utterly disgusted by the atrocity perpetrated in Orlando. It is clear from the choice of target that the hate in that killer’s heart was a prejudice—a homophobic prejudice—that I think everyone in this House would want to denounce. For that reason, I think he is absolutely right to say that we, too, need to be vigilant.
Let me first pay tribute to everyone who attended the vigil in Old Compton Street last night to show our solidarity with the victims of this atrocity. Let me also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has been leading work to ensure that we can both anticipate any threats to the LGBTQ community in this country and review not just the operational but the legislative requirements to keep people safe.
It is a critical part of being British that we celebrate the right of people to live and love in different ways. For that reason, I think all of us would want to send our condolences and sympathies to the victims and that all of us would want to say, as a House, that we stand resolutely behind the vital importance of recognising and celebrating difference in our society.

Christopher Chope: Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor expressed his frustration at our country’s inability to prevent the entry of foreign national criminals and even terror suspects. Can he tell the House how things will change when we leave the European Union?

Dominic Raab: I think it is well known that the current test for denial of entry for people coming from the EU is that they must pose a serious, genuine and present threat, which has obviously created difficulties over the years.

Meg Hillier: Last week the Public Accounts Committee published a report on the criminal justice system. One of our conclusions was:
“The criminal justice system is not good enough at supporting victims and witnesses.”
We also quoted the fact that only 55% of witnesses, many of whom are of course victims as well, say that they would go through the process again. Does the Secretary of State agree with our conclusion?

Michael Gove: Yes, I do. It has sometimes been the habit in the past for people to be greeted with a report from the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee and attempt to suggest that it is an exercise in—well, there have been criticisms in the past. I certainly do not criticise the PAC or the NAO. The report is a welcome wake-up call. My right hon. Friend the victims Minister will bring forward a Green Paper with details on how we can better help victims and witnesses, but there is much that we need to do to improve the criminal justice system, and our judiciary get it.

Huw Merriman: I, too, attended the all-party group on autism’s visit to Feltham and was inspired by what the governor and his team  are doing. Will the prisons Minister consider using the  forthcoming prisons Bill to improve the life chances of the 5% of the prison population who are estimated to suffer with autism?

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for showing serious interest in the issue. I was pleased that he was able to go to Feltham yesterday. I am not sure that we need to legislate; we need to spread the good practice from Feltham across the prison system, and I hope that the reform prison governors will be in the lead in doing that.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: On 19 April, the Secretary of State said in a statement:
“It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers’ ability to do the things they were elected to do”.
Given that being able to constrain this Tory Government can only be a very good thing for the people of this country, what did he have in mind?

Michael Gove: My view is that any Minister—Conservative, Labour or, who knows, Scottish National party in the future, perhaps as part of a coalition—should be accountable to the people of this country for the decisions that they make. When the European Court of Justice can rule in a way against which there is no recourse or appeal, our democracy is undermined. Our democracy is precious, and the European Court of Justice is no friend of it.

Bob Neill: Next week the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will appoint a new British judge to replace Judge Paul Mahoney upon his retirement. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that that makes this an appropriate moment for us to recognise Judge Mahoney and thank him for his work, and to recognise the contribution that British judges and lawyers have made to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights throughout its existence?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, the European convention on human rights was authored in large part by a British lawyer—a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, in fact. Whatever one thinks of the operations of the Court at different times, the rights contained in that convention are precious. I thank Judge Mahoney for his outstanding work, and I know that there are some brilliant lawyers who stand ready to replace him. I am sure that the Council of Europe will give careful thought, as ever, to ensuring that we have the right candidate in place to emulate Judge Mahoney’s outstanding work.

Greg Mulholland: Constituents including the families of Jamie Still and of David and Dorothy Metcalf were dismayed after the report in the   Telegraph that there would be an announcement on criminal driving in the Queen’s Speech turned out not to be correct. Will the Secretary of State give a clear assurance that the review will happen quickly and that we will finally get changes to give victims of criminal driving and their families better justice?

Dominic Raab: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this issue. Everything that we do on sentencing is informed by the need to protect the public and drive down reoffending. We will look at a range of proposals in due course with those twin objectives in mind, including the potential for prisoners to earn their release from custody. We are also looking at driving offences and, as with stalking, we will welcome any further ideas along the way.

Dawn Butler: The former Justice Secretary was warned that cuts in legal aid to domestic violence victims were “grossly unfair” and “harsh”. That is why the Court of Appeal shot them down. In response, the Government decided to do a survey, which had a very limited timeframe for being filled in. Do the Government think that that was a reasonable way to show that they take the situation seriously? Would it not be better to have a full, open, public and transparent consultation?

Shailesh Vara: I say very gently to the hon. Lady that she is completely misinformed and wrong. Following that court judgment, the Government increased the time period for the production of evidence from two years to five years, and have allowed financial abuse to be taken into account. What is more, having made those immediate changes to the system, we are now engaging with the relevant stakeholders to bring in a better system that will be satisfactory to all concerned.

Margaret Ferrier: The Home Office has reportedly refused to disclose data on sexual violence towards detainees at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre because the information could damage the commercial interests of the company that runs the facility. Is the Minister able to assure the House that Ministry of Justice policy will not put profit before people in prisons?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady is understandably concerned about the fate of detainees. I stress that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office work closely together to ensure that detainees are well looked after. My understanding from the Home Secretary is that press reporting may have inadvertently led the hon. Lady to raise something that is not strictly the case. I will work with the Home Office in order to properly address her concerns.

FOOTBALL FAN VIOLENCE: EURO 2016

Andy Burnham: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the incidents of violence in Marseille over the weekend involving England fans at the Euro 2016 football tournament.

Theresa May: As I told the House yesterday, the trouble that occurred in Marseille involving England supporters was deeply disturbing. Yesterday I also made it clear that co-ordinated groups of Russian supporters were responsible for instigating a good deal of the worst violence. I note that within the past hour UEFA has announced that Russia is subject to a suspended disqualification from the tournament. This Government’s priority now is to work with the French authorities to ensure that the events of the weekend are not repeated.
This morning I updated Cabinet colleagues on the full range of measures we are taking ahead of the match between England and Wales in Lens on Thursday. It had already been agreed with the French that an additional contingent of UK police spotters would be deployed to help identify troublemakers. The Foreign Office is advising supporters without tickets to avoid travelling to Lens and nearby Lille; it has drawn fans’ attention to the fact that Russia is playing Slovakia in Lille tomorrow afternoon and has said that English and Welsh supporters should be on their guard.
Stadium security is a significant concern following the breakdown of segregation in the Vélodrome stadium. We are all acutely conscious of the dangers when crowd management inside a stadium goes wrong. Discussions are going on with the French police about reinforcing the stewarding operation in Lens on Thursday night.
The House will already be aware of the robust operation in place in this country to prevent known troublemakers subject to football banning orders from travelling to France before the start of the tournament, as a result of which almost 1,400 passports have been surrendered. Following the violence in Marseille, nine British nationals were arrested, six of whom have now been given custodial sentences for their involvement in that violence. We expect all to be subject to additional court proceedings on their return to the UK, to examine whether banning orders should be imposed.
I am deeply concerned at the very serious injuries suffered by some England supporters in Marseille. The Foreign Office has additional staff in France and is providing consular assistance to those who have been hurt and to their families.
I am confident that all the measures that we and the French are taking will help, but I conclude by echoing the England captain and manager, who have urged fans to stay out of trouble. As UEFA’s decision relating to the Russian team shows, the penalties for individuals and for the teams they support could be severe if there is more violence in the days ahead.

Andy Burnham: As the dust settles on a terrible weekend in Marseille, attention is turning to security around England’s next game. While England fans were certainly not blameless at the weekend, it is clear that  they were the subject of extreme violence meted out by Russian supporters. Whatever the rights and wrongs, we cannot afford to see any repeat of that. I am sure we are all agreed on that, but there are real fears that there could be a repeat.
The chairman of the Football Association has raised serious concerns in a letter to UEFA. He identifies a number of major security lapses in the stadium on Saturday. He says that stewarding was poor and segregation insufficient, and that fireworks and flares were taken in and then let off. That is extraordinary, given the heightened security around the tournament. Greg Dyke also points to a situation where England and Russian fans may come face-to-face again tomorrow in Lille. The thousands of people from the three home nations who are out there to enjoy the football will now be worried about their safety. That is why we have brought this urgent question today.
With respect to the Home Secretary, she did not provide a full statement on these matters yesterday. Can she confirm today exactly how many police are being sent to France and what precisely they will be asked to do? She mentions football banning orders. In 2010, 3,174 football banning orders were in place. Now, that number is 2,181. Why has it dropped so significantly? She says that 1,400 passports were seized in advance of the tournament, but there are over 2,000 banning orders. What happened to the other 600 people whose passports have not been taken?
On stadium safety, will the Government today contact UEFA to reinforce the FA’s concerns at a very senior level? Will the Home Secretary ask UEFA to investigate claims that Russian ultras have links to the official Russian delegation?
On policing, it would appear that some tactics were heavy-handed and the indiscriminate use of tear gas added to the general sense of chaos. We accept the sensitivity of policing, but will there be any discussion with the French authorities on policing going forward? Will there be any discussions about managing particular flashpoints in Lille tomorrow and keeping supporters separate?
What is needed now more than anything is honesty and cool heads on all sides. Many England fans were clearly the victims of violent extremists and poor security, but it is not acceptable to march into someone else’s town singing provocative songs about the second world war and launching bottles at police. Ahead of Thursday and the rest of the tournament, all sides now need to take a look at themselves and resolve, from hereon in, to make this the festival of football we all want it to be.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues. I can assure him that we are in touch with a number of people. This morning I spoke to Assistant Chief Constable Roberts, the police lead on these matters. ACC Roberts was in fact in the middle of a meeting with French police and others, so I am not able to give the right hon. Gentleman the full results of that meeting. However, I will be able to speak on some of the measures being taken. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport spoke to the Russian Sports Minister after the events that took place in Marseille at the weekend. As I said yesterday, I have spoken with my French opposite number, Bernard Cazeneuve.
As I said, the police were meeting—I think they are still meeting as we speak—to consider what extra action will be taken around Lille and Lens. My understanding is that there is an expectation that there will be a greater police presence around the stadium, for security both outside and inside the stadium. The right hon. Gentleman asks how many police we have sent to France. We do not talk about numbers for operational reasons, but we are involved in a number of things: police spotters are trained to spot potential troublemakers; we are providing support on post-incident analysis of, for example, CCTV footage; and we are providing some investigative support. Whatever the French have asked for, we have been willing to provide. As I said, that goes for both police and British transport police.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the change in number of the approximately 2,000 people subject to a football banning order here and the nearly 1,400 who have had passports taken away. The answer to his question is that we have taken passports away from those who are passport holders; the others do not hold passports.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, the disgraceful scenes in France, in particular by Russian thugs, are to be condemned. What has my right hon. Friend done about assessing the position of Russia hosting the next World cup in 2018? The implications for the safety of England supporters, and of supporters from around the world, have to be considered. We all want to see the beautiful game played on the field, not thugs on the terraces ruining it.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our current focus must be on the immediacy of Euro 2016, but he is absolutely right that, following this event, we will need to look carefully at the next championship event, which, as he says, is due to be held in Russia. There will be concerns about that in view of what we have seen with the Russian supporters. As my hon. Friend says, and as I reiterated yesterday, any fans, whoever they support, who get involved in violence during these games are letting down not only themselves, but all the law-abiding fans who want to go and enjoy a good football tournament.

Joanna Cherry: Of course we must take steps to protect fans from all the home nations from violence at the hands of others while they are abroad, but does the Home Secretary agree that we must also address the appalling behaviour of some of the English fans? In the 1970s, we had a serious problem with football hooliganism in Scotland. We managed to address it, and now the tartan army win awards for their good behaviour and their charitable work. Scotland may not have a world-class—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Listen to the hon. and learned Lady.

Joanna Cherry: Scotland may not have a world-class football team—yet—but we have world-class fans who know how to behave themselves, as it appears do the Welsh and the Northern Irish fans. My point is that the problem of recurring football   hooliganism is not insoluble. What is most worrying, however, is the undertow of racism to this football hooliganism, and if it is allowed to continue unchecked, English fans will not be welcome abroad. What is being done to address that? Finally, a senior politician in Marseille has demanded that the United Kingdom pay towards the cost of the clean-up operation after the trouble on the city’s streets. What steps will the Home Secretary take to ensure that these costs fall on the fans responsible and not on the British taxpayer?

Theresa May: I think that tone of the hon. and learned Lady’s remarks was somewhat unfortunate. Yes, as I indicated yesterday at Home Office questions—the hon. and learned Lady was in her place at the time—some England supporters were involved in the violence; and as I indicated just now in response to the urgent question, nine England supporters have been arrested and action is being taken against them by the French criminal justice system. Those people will be considered for banning orders when they return to the United Kingdom. Football hooliganism can erupt anywhere with any group of fans. We have experience here in the UK of dealing with football hooliganism in the past. Arrangements, including banning orders, are in place, and they do work well, but we are, of course, ever-vigilant and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the law-abiding fans who wish to enjoy football are able to do so.

Philip Hollobone: English football hooligans who take part in such violence bring shame on our country. It would appear in this case that the bulk of the responsibility lies with some really nasty Russian football hooligans. Anyone who takes part in violence needs to take responsibility for it. Frankly, the French have enough to worry about with the terrorist threat to this football tournament, and this is the very worst time to have to get involved in other issues. Will my right hon. Friend redouble her efforts to make sure that the French have all the intelligence they need to weed out the few troublemakers who are catching the headlines?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are working with the French authorities to ensure that they have as much information as possible about the individuals who might be troublemakers. Given our expertise with police spotters, greater numbers of them will be in France for the match on Thursday, so that they can provide exactly that support to the French authorities.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I see in his place the record-setting, long-serving Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I call Mr Keith Vaz.

Keith Vaz: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is ludicrous to believe that politicians, Ministers or shadow Ministers can control what supporters do at a football match. However, it is a worry, given that more matches are to be played, that flares and other weapons were being taken into stadiums at a time when France is on such a high state of alert. Interpol is 200 miles away from Marseille. What action is being taken to flag up  the names and the photographs of those involved with Interpol, so we can ensure that these people cannot travel across borders in the future?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman mentions stadium security and flares being taken in, and we are discussing with the French police what further steps they can take on security both at and inside the stadium on Thursday. The UK police are working with the French, and with the Russian and Slovakian police—the match on Wednesday will be Russia versus Slovakia in Lille—to ensure that every action is taken to identify and act against troublemakers. Action has been taken against England fans, and there are also some reports about the French authorities taking action against some Russian fans.

Jason McCartney: The French authorities, police and armed forces have had to face the horrors of the Charlie Hebdo and Paris attacks in recent months, so does the Home Secretary agree that no matter what the provocation from Russian thugs, it is beholden on English football fans to show restraint and respect to the French authorities?

Theresa May: Yes, and we should give that clear message to the England fans. As I said, the England captain and manager have urged and encouraged fans to go and enjoy the football, to show respect for the authorities, and not to get involved in violence or hooliganism.

Toby Perkins: I was at the match on Saturday in Marseille, and the scenes that we saw in the stadium were of a sort that we thought we had left behind 30 years ago. It was an appalling, co-ordinated and violent assault on England fans by the Russian fans, and it was very worrying. It is clear that the French police were entirely focused on preventing terrorism, and they had no real strategy for preventing hooliganism. By taking responsibility for running the tournament at this time, the police have a responsibility to keep fans safe. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the French police—who were non-existent three minutes after the attacks had started—police all aspects of the tournament, including hooliganism and violence, and are not just looking at terrorism?

Theresa May: UEFA’s rules about police presence in the stadium are different from the rules that we tend to operate in the United Kingdom, where we do have a police presence in the stadium, but those sorts of discussions are currently taking place at an operational level. I have spoken to Assistant Chief Constable Roberts, who is leading UK policing involvement. The police are sitting down and discussing with the various authorities how much policing can be put into the stadium, and what action can be taken for security outside the stadium for those who are entering it, as well as those inside.

David Jones: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in commending the Wales fans whose conduct at Bordeaux was widely praised in the French press. She has mentioned the measures that she is putting in place, together with her French colleagues, in anticipation of the match at Lens. Given that that will be the first encounter between two  British teams, does she share my concern that it may prove to be a possible target for an external terrorist threat, and are the security services bearing that in mind?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend will be reassured to know that the Secretary of State for Wales spoke to the Football Association of Wales yesterday about those matters, and we are working with authorities from all the home nations involved in this tournament. The security and terrorist threat for France remains critical, as it has been for some time, but I assure my right hon. Friend and the House that law enforcement and security services in the UK are working closely with their French counterparts on the terrorist threat that we all face.

Thangam Debbonaire: Does the Home Secretary share the conviction that football—the beautiful game—can often be a force for good, and that most football fans, both here and abroad, are there to enjoy the game? What will she do in the coming days and months to spread that message, and what conversations will she have with the FA, and others, to ensure that those who come in peace outnumber and out-voice those who come to do violence?

Theresa May: I share the hon. Lady’s comments about football, and as president of the Wargrave Girls football club I see the effect of football on young people, and the excitement, interest and benefits that it can give. On a more serious note, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be in touch with football authorities in the United Kingdom, and we must make it clear that people should be enjoying this sport. People should not feel fear when they go to a game; they should know that they are going to enjoy it, and come away having done so and feeling better for it.

Gareth Johnson: Banning orders have been effective in the past, but they have tended to be imposed for domestic incidents, rather than those that have taken place abroad. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that every effort will be made to identify troublemakers abroad so that whether or not they have been arrested, banning orders can be imposed and we will not have problems from those people in  the future?

Theresa May: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. When people are identified, consideration will be given to taking action through banning orders. It is possible to give banning orders for violence that has occurred outside the UK.

Nigel Dodds: The appalling violence must be condemned, whoever perpetrates it and wherever it comes from. I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that fans from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and indeed the Irish Republic who have behaved in an exemplary way deserve praise, and that they are the vast bulk of fans. Our thoughts are with the family of a fan from Northern Ireland, Darren Rodgers, who was killed in an accident in Nice, and I am sure that the good wishes of the whole House go to his family at this sad time. Will the Home Secretary impress on the French authorities and UEFA the lessons that they need to learn about the events of last week?

Theresa May: I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and the House sends its condolences to the family of Darren Rodgers. That was a terrible accident to happen in any circumstances, but for someone who was going there to enjoy watching the football, it is an appalling tragedy for his family.
We are talking to the French authorities about how matches can be policed, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the vast majority of fans are law-abiding and go to enjoy the game and have a good time. We should praise them when they do so, and I encourage all fans from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to carry on doing that and to ensure that we have a tournament of which everybody is proud.

Christopher Chope: Following the great success of last year’s rugby world cup, will my right hon. Friend commission a study into what is causing the distinction in behaviour between some who support association football and those who support rugby football?

Theresa May: A lot of work has been done on football hooliganism over the years, and our UK police are very good at managing football matches so that people of all ages are able to go and enjoy them.

Jo Stevens: On Thursday we will see the historic fixture between England and Wales at Euro 2016, featuring the best player in the tournament, Cardiff’s own Gareth Bale. Does the Home Secretary agree that the best antidote to what happened last weekend would be a brilliant game on Thursday, and a peaceful crowd throughout the game?

Theresa May: I will not comment on individual players, but I entirely echo what the hon. Lady says about the best antidote to what happened last Saturday being a peaceful and excellent game that everybody can enjoy.

Alison Thewliss: I understand that the sanctions that UEFA is levelling against the Russians—a suspended disqualification and a fine—apply only to incidents that happened within the ground, because that is the extent of its jurisdiction. Does the Home Secretary agree that we need to examine the rules so that the football associations of the home nations are responsible for their fans regardless of where they are and that the rules should not be limited just to actions within a stadium?

Theresa May: I think that the hon. Lady’s understanding of the situation is correct. These are, of course, UEFA rules, and it not a matter for the Government to set those rules, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has heard her question.

Clive Betts: The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked a very relevant question about the next World cup, which will take place in Russia. Will the Home Secretary ask UEFA and FIFA to investigate the alleged links between the Russian football authorities and extreme groups? Will she also ask FIFA to investigate the ability and willingness of the football and political authorities in Russia to offer a safe and secure environment to law-abiding   fans who want to travel to the World cup, especially in view of the amount of racism and homophobia that exists in sections of that country?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of concerns relating to the tournament in Russia. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has been in touch with the sport Ministers in Russia. I think that our immediate focus must be on the tournament in France, but I am sure that when that tournament is over, people looking ahead to the tournament in Russia will want to raise many issues, some of which will be for Governments and others for the football authorities.

David Anderson: Before our friends from Scotland get too carried away, may I gently remind them that there was a riot at the end of the Scottish football final on 21 May?
I want to make a serious point about how we can prevent racism and do the necessary work on the ground. For the past two decades, groups such as Show Racism the Red Card have played a tremendous part in that anti-racist work, going into schools and encouraging young people to get involved in it. Sadly, however, as a result of Government decisions, funding for such groups has been cut both by local authorities and the Department for Communities and Local Government. May I encourage the Home Secretary and other Ministers who are here today to consider restoring that support? Getting to our children first is what will end this curse.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the significant work that has been done over the years to stop racism in football. Sadly, the job is not complete; the work must continue, and the Government and football authorities take that seriously. However, the issue is wider than racism. Before the Olympics I was involved in discussions with a number of sports authorities, including the Football Association, about homophobia at sporting events. We should all take those issues seriously and work at every level to try to cut all that out.

Greg Mulholland: Any football fan who goes to a match intending to commit or initiate violence is clearly criminal and must be subject to the full force of the law. However, what we witnessed in the stadium were innocent people suffering unprovoked assaults, having to flee for their lives and risking serious injury. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the fact that those fans were wearing football shirts will not prevent them from receiving the Government’s full support so that they can seek justice against their perpetrators like people in any other walk of life?

Theresa May: Obviously the investigation of any incidents that have taken place will be primarily a matter for the French authorities. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that consular support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is available to all those people.

Kevin Brennan: I was lucky enough to be part of the 25,000-strong sea of red in Bordeaux at the weekend who witnessed Wales’s victory over Slovakia, which leaves us top of the group—[Interruption]—ahead of England. However, there is  genuine concern about what those Welsh fans may face during the two group games before the next stage: the games against England and Russia. The Home Secretary is, after all, Home Secretary for both England and Wales, so what assurances can she give about what she is doing, in conjunction with other authorities, to ensure that those Welsh fans—who, it must be said, behaved impeccably in Bordeaux—are protected during the next two games?

Theresa May: You will have noticed, Mr Speaker, that I am trying to avoid commenting on any results of matches that have taken place.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are paying attention to the policing of all the matches that involve home nations. Police from Wales, England and Northern Ireland are in France, and Assistant Chief Constable Roberts is working with all the police and the French authorities on behalf of every home nation.

Mike Gapes: Following the Home Secretary’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), may I ask her whether she has read the remarks of Mr Igor Lebedev, a Member of the Russian Parliament who is also a member of the executive of the Football Union of Russia? He has actually said, “Well done, lads—keep it up,” to those thugs and hooligans. Given that he is a member of the so-called—apologies—Liberal Democratic party, which is a fascist party in Russia, does that  not indicate that there is a wider political problem that calls into question whether Russia should host the World cup?

Theresa May: I have seen a newspaper report of those remarks, which were utterly irresponsible and not remarks that we would expect to hear from anyone. I would not expect anyone to support the violence that was perpetrated by Russian fans against England fans, or to express any belief that that was in any respect the right way to behave. I think that it was an utterly appalling statement. I have indicated that there are issues to be addressed in the future in relation to football in Russia, given everything that has been seen.

John Bercow: He sounds a very bigoted fellow indeed.

Jim Shannon: Russian fans were high on body-building medication, covered in tattoos and spoiling for a fight, encouraged—as we heard from the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes)—by some Russian Members of Parliament. What will be done to protect British fans—indeed, all fans—from these Russian thugs?

Theresa May: Every effort is being made to work with the French authorities to ensure that if any extra action is necessary to protect fans from any of the home nations against the thugs who have been perpetrating this violence, that action is taken.

Jonathan Edwards: I was in Bordeaux over the weekend. I hope that the Home Secretary will join me in congratulating the Welsh fans on their fantastic behaviour, which she did  not do earlier. However, as a seasoned supporter, I am, like the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), genuinely concerned about what will happen in the next 48 hours, when Welsh fans find themselves in a toxic cocktail consisting of a small minority of Russian and English football hooligans. The Welsh FA has advised fans not to travel to Lens without a ticket and not to stay in Lille, as have the UK Government. Will the Home Secretary call on the English FA to make a similar statement and to start taking responsibility for the actions of a small minority of its supporters?

Theresa May: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and others in praising those Welsh fans who behaved perfectly properly at the opening match in which Wales was involved. I am also happy to praise the English and Northern Irish fans who behaved perfectly properly at their matches. Unfortunately, as we know, a number of Russian supporters instigated and were involved in violence, along with—sadly—a small number of English supporters. I think that we should send the clear message that has already been sent by the England captain and manager: we want fans—all fans—to behave properly, and not to become involved in any violence whatsoever.

Mike Kane: Like hundreds of thousands of other people, my family and I have just renewed our season tickets for our hometown clubs, but none of us fancy the prospect of sitting next to anyone who was tried and convicted of violence in France during the next season. Does the Home Secretary agree that clubs themselves should revoke, without recompense, the season tickets of any fans who are found to have been tried and convicted?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman tempts me down a route for which neither I nor any other Minister has responsibility. It is up to football clubs themselves to choose what action to take. What is important is that where we, as a Government, can take action in relation to the banning orders, that action is taken, as it has been and will continue to be.

Gavin Robinson: It has not been lost on us that, as the police deal with the mammoth task of securing the Euros, there was an IS-claimed terror attack yesterday in Paris, resulting in the loss of two lives. As we send our police from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, from England and from Wales, we reduce the burden on the French authorities and, indeed, keep our fans safe. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether the Russian authorities have been as positive, proactive and productive in continuing to check on their fans as we have?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is right: an attack did take place, which has been claimed as Daesh-related, and I understand the French Interior Minister and indeed President have described it as such. Obviously, the full details of that attack are yet to emerge, but it is important that we allow the French authorities to undertake the work that they need to do to keep fans safe, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that from the conversation I have had with ACC Roberts, it is clear the Russian police who are present in France are also working with the French authorities and the UK police on this matter.

Andrew Gwynne: But it is not just Russian Members of Parliament who are acting irresponsibly; so, too, are sections of the Russian media. Is the Home Secretary aware that the Komsomolskaya Pravda tabloid says that Russia is now the clear favourite to win the “alternative Euros” and has published a glossary of hooligan terms for the uninitiated? Is that not reprehensible? What discussions is she having with the Russian authorities to condemn those actions, and what conversations are the Government having with FIFA in respect of Russia hosting the next World cup?

Theresa May: I made it a rule fairly early on in my life never to read Pravda.

Tom Elliott: I would like to add my condolences to the family of Darren Rodgers, the Northern Ireland supporter who died, tragically, in France. I also pay tribute to those fans who have gone from the United Kingdom, whether England, Wales or Northern Ireland—and, indeed, fans from the Republic of Ireland—and have behaved well.
Have the Home Secretary, or the forces and authorities, identified any short-term measures that could be put in place over this next week and 10 days to try to address and reduce the violence taking place in France?

Theresa May: Work is being done with the French authorities to look at the policing of future matches, with a particular focus, obviously, on the match in Lille and, from our point of view, the England-Wales game in Lens on Thursday. The authorities and police here will also be taking every action necessary. If there are fans who return to the UK who have been involved in violence and could be subject to banning orders, the police will take action against them.

WALES BILL

[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2015-16, on Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Wales Bill, HC 449, and the Government response, HC 280.]
Second Reading

Alun Cairns: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We are here today to debate the Wales Bill—legislation of fundamental importance to the future governance of Wales and its role within the United Kingdom. It will empower the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government to deliver the things that really matter: the economy, the environment and essential public services. I want to thank stakeholders, including the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), and the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for their work on the draft Bill, and those, including the Welsh Government, for the way they have responded to the publication of the Bill. I am committed to continue working with all those stakeholders and others as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
I would first like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) who each worked tirelessly to put Welsh devolution on a stable footing for the long term, and who have all played a major part in the development of this Bill. Following the resounding yes vote in the March 2011 referendum on full lawmaking powers for the National Assembly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham sought to simplify Welsh devolution by removing the widely disparaged legislative competence order, or LCO, system—a system and process I think we would all sooner forget. My right hon. Friend established a commission to review the financial and constitutional arrangements in Wales. The Silk commission, chaired by Sir Paul Silk—I pay tribute to him and to those who joined him on the commission for their work—included representatives from all four political parties represented in the Assembly. It published its first report in November 2012, which was on devolving financial powers to the Assembly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West then took forward the Wales Act 2014 to implement recommendations in that report, devolving tax-varying powers to the Assembly for the first time, establishing an important principle.
The Silk commission published its second report, on the Assembly’s legislative powers, in March 2014, from which my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire established the St David’s day process seeking political consensus on what could be taken forward. This culminated in the St David’s day agreement published in February 2015, which forms the blueprint for the Bill before us today.
I have also considered the Smith commission’s proposals, and in turn the Scotland Act, to include the elements that work for Wales.
In preparing this Bill I have been guided by two underpinning principles: clarity and accountability.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of clarity, will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear to the House whether the Bill as it now stands would permit the Assembly to introduce compulsory voting in Welsh Assembly elections?

Alun Cairns: I am happy to give that clarification. Matters of elections, which I will come to in further detail, will be devolved, subject to a two-thirds majority. That includes the franchise for the Assembly elections and the constituencies and a whole range of other areas. [Interruption.] I will happily respond to those points when I get to that part in my speech a little later.
I was guided by the principle of clarity because the new reserved powers model of devolution draws a well-defined boundary between what is reserved and what is devolved, clarifying who is responsible for what. It is also a major step in extending powers. It will end the squabbles over powers between Cardiff Bay and Westminster, enabling the Welsh Government to get on with the job of improving the economy, securing jobs and improving devolved public services.
The second principle is accountability. The Bill paves the way to introduce Welsh rates of income tax. It will make the Welsh Government accountable to people in Wales for raising more of the money they spend. This, again, is a major step in the Assembly’s maturity.

Hywel Williams: Will the Secretary of State concede that a third possible point of principle would be proper subsidiarity, and if so, does he believe this Bill meets that requirement?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I hope we can cover some of those points later in the debate, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, much will depend on what you determine and interpret as subsidiarity.

David Hanson: The Secretary of State just mentioned Welsh income tax rates. What guarantees is he going to give the House with regard to the Welsh block grant to the National Assembly for Wales over the duration of this Parliament, which is all he can speak for? My worry is that he will cut the block grant and expect the people of Wales to make up the difference from higher income tax rates.

Alun Cairns: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise the funding floor introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was a clear commitment and promise delivered by the Government. Of course, the Barnett adjustments need to be considered, and discussions between the Welsh Government and the Treasury and my officials are ongoing. We would like to see progress on those matters as the Bill is scrutinised throughout the parliamentary process. Both Administrations are determined to find a transparent way that will rightly serve the people of Wales and the Welsh and UK taxpayer.

Jonathan Edwards: I wish to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the comments of his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Scotland Act:
“This is a truly significant day for Scotland. If this Bill completes its parliamentary progress, it will add to the already extensive responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament a range of important new powers. It provides even greater opportunities for the Scottish Government to tailor and deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish issues.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 1683.]
Was the Secretary of State for Scotland right, and if so, why has the Secretary of State for Wales brought forward a Bill that pales into insignificance when compared with the Bill given to the people of Scotland?

Alun Cairns: I am somewhat disappointed by the tone the hon. Gentleman is taking. We have developed the Bill through consensus. We have responded to the comments that were made following the publication of the draft Bill, and before that we had the St David’s day agreement, in which his party was an active participant. We have sought to develop political consensus, but ultimately we do not have a uniform approach to devolution. What is right for Scotland is not necessarily right for Northern Ireland or for Wales. Clearly we have different circumstances and needs, and we should respond to those needs by developing appropriate Bills. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will actively participate and seek to improve the Bill through the parliamentary process; I am determined to achieve a Bill that all Members of the House will be at best satisfied with.

Carolyn Harris: In February, the Secretary of State’s predecessor said:
“A lot of the criticism of the draft Bill has been ill-informed or just plain wrong.”
Given that the Government have accepted most of the criticism and amended the Bill, does the Secretary of State agree that his predecessor was wrong?

Alun Cairns: It is right to say that part of the criticism was certainly ill informed and will have been wrong, but that does not necessarily mean that all the other elements of the scrutiny were wrong. One of the purposes of publishing a draft Bill was to encourage active scrutiny by the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which the hon. Lady is an active member. We are grateful for her input and that of the Committee.
We have made a commitment to put in place a clearer, stronger and fairer devolution settlement for Wales, and that is exactly what the Bill does. The St David’s day process established “Powers for a Purpose”—that is, powers that can make a real, practical difference to the lives of the people in Wales. Among the many powers devolved in the Bill are those that will enable the Assembly to decide the speed limits on Welsh roads; how taxis and buses in Wales should be regulated; whether fracking should take place and, if so, how it should be regulated; and how planning consent is given for all but the most strategic energy projects.

Paul Flynn: The Bill contains welcome new powers for the Assembly on energy projects, but they are limited to projects that are smaller than 350 MW, and there are very few of those. Why can the powers not be extended to much larger projects?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his long-standing interest in these matters. I would point out that 350 MW is quite a significant capacity. I would also remind him that the basis for this proposal was a recommendation from the Silk commission.

David Jones: Further to that point, though, does my right hon. Friend agree that in respect of wind generation, the Assembly’s powers will now be unlimited?

Alun Cairns: The powers in the Bill will be limited to a capacity of 350 MW, as I have stated.
There can be no doubt as to the extent to which the Assembly has matured over the 17 years since it was established. That maturity is reflected in the development of the institution into a confident lawmaking legislature. In recognition of this, the Bill enshrines the Assembly and the Welsh Government as permanent parts of the United Kingdom’s constitutional fabric for the first time. It also makes a commitment that Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the Assembly’s consent.

Hywel Williams: The Secretary of State referred a moment ago to some of the new powers, but of course some powers are not going to be devolved. Could he explain the principle behind choosing which powers to devolve and which to retain? For example, why is water to be retained here while sewerage goes down to Cardiff?

Alun Cairns: I will talk about the devolution of powers relating to water a bit later on. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an intergovernmental working group has been established and that it is considering the implications of the in-principle decision that has been taken on devolved water. I will happily comment in further detail when I reach that part of my speech.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend mentioned what will effectively be the incorporation of the Sewel convention in statute, for the first time so far as Wales is concerned. Clause 2 of the Bill states:
“it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly.”
If the United Kingdom Parliament were to legislate for such matters and there were to be a challenge from the Welsh Government as to whether that was “normal”, how would that matter be adjudicated?

Alun Cairns: The basis of this clause has been drawn from the Scotland Act. It would be a matter for the courts to judge in such a situation, but this underlines the principle that Parliament is sovereign in these matters, although we will absolutely respect the rights of the Assembly. That is why we have included a clause stating that we will not “normally” legislate on devolved areas.
The debate on the draft Bill, which was published for pre-legislative scrutiny last autumn, was dominated by justice issues. In particular, it focused on something that was labelled the necessity test, and the inclusion of the test led to calls for a separate jurisdiction. I have listened to those concerns, and this Bill has moved a long way from the draft version and is by general consensus more suitable. The necessity test was believed to set too high a bar, and calls were made for a lower threshold. I have gone further, however, and removed the test entirely when the Assembly modifies the civil and criminal law for devolved purposes. As a consequence, many of the arguments for a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales should have fallen away.
However, I recognise the validity of some of the points raised during pre-legislative scrutiny about  the existence of Welsh law. The Bill formally recognises for the first time that a body of Welsh law made by  the Assembly and Welsh Ministers forms part of the  law of England and Wales within the England and Wales jurisdiction. The recognition of Welsh law needs distinct arrangements. As a result, I have been working with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary to establish an officials-led working group to look at how those administrative arrangements should be improved. The group includes representatives from the Judicial Office and the Welsh Government, and it will take forward its work in parallel with the progress of the Bill through this House and the other place.
The single jurisdiction can readily accommodate a growing body of Welsh law without the need for separation. There are many reasons why a separate jurisdiction would be to the detriment of Wales. As well as the unnecessary upheaval and cost of such a change, the economic and commercial interdependence of the legal profession on both sides of the border means that separation would undermine the success of one of Wales’s fastest growing sectors—the legal profession.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the working group be looking at the justice impact assessments mentioned in the Bill, and will it present its report before we have our final vote on the Bill on Third Reading?

Alun Cairns: The terms of reference for the working group have been published, and I would expect it to report in the autumn. The justice impact assessment is a matter for the Assembly and for scrutiny by Assembly Members. The principle of having a justice impact assessment is fundamental to proper scrutiny of any mature legislature. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, we might be able to debate that when I get to that element—as I am about to do now.
Some Members, such as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), have asked me about the requirement in the Bill for justice impact assessments to accompany Assembly Bills, and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify its purpose a little further. It is only natural for a mature legislature to consider the consequences of its own legislation. The impacts of Assembly Bills are assessed against a range of matters, including, quite rightly, the Welsh language and equalities, but no formal assessment is made of their potential impacts on the justice system, which is vital for its laws to be enforced properly. It is simply common sense that any such matters are considered and such an assessment is made, to help with the efficient delivery of justice services.
The Government committed in the St David’s day agreement to implementing—

Jonathan Edwards: This is the key point in relation to these new impacts. Who is going to be making the assessments? I take it that the Minister’s view is that that is a matter for the Welsh Government, but would those assessments at any point lead to a trigger whereby the Ministry of Justice could object to Welsh legislation?

Alun Cairns: It is a matter for Assembly Members, and the requirement is that the Standing Orders include a request for a justice impact assessment. No, there will be no veto arising out of the justice impact assessment. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a practical example.
The Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 has supporting documents in excess of 30 pages, with 15 lines talking about the justice implications or the consequence thereafter.  The principle we are requesting is that full, proper consideration be given to the justice consequences that arise thereafter. That is mature scrutiny, and I pay tribute to the way in which the First Minister responded to the question on the Floor of the Assembly some weeks ago. Rather than a general accommodation with the Standing Orders, we are talking about a specific request for a justice impact assessment.
The Government committed in the St David’s day agreement to implement a clear devolution boundary for Wales. The reserved powers model at the heart of the Bill will make the Welsh devolution settlement clearer by drawing a well-defined boundary between what is reserved and what is devolved. Anything not specifically reserved is devolved to the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers—it does not get clearer than that! The Bill’s pre-legislative scrutiny prompted a wide-ranging discussion on what the future shape and structure of Welsh devolution should be. The list of reservations included in the draft Bill was criticised as being too long. We have listened, and the list in the Bill contains fewer reservations and I have made the descriptions more accurate. More importantly, there is a clear rationale for reservations that are included. The list of reservations will never be as short as some would like, but clarity requires specificity. The list included in the Bill will be subject to further fine tuning, but I believe that, broadly, we have struck the right balance.
The Bill also clarifies the devolution boundary by defining which public authorities are Wales public authorities—devolved bodies—with all other public authorities being reserved authorities. To add further clarity, the Bill lists those bodies that are currently Wales public authorities, a list we have compiled in consultation with the Welsh Government and the Assembly Commission. Naturally, the consent of the UK Government will be needed if an Assembly Bill seeks to impose or modify the functions of a reserved body. That follows the well-established principle that the Assembly approves through legislative consent motions UK Government legislation that touches devolved areas.
The final key element of a clear settlement is the change we are making to the functions of Welsh Ministers. It is hard to believe that Welsh Ministers have not been able to exercise common law powers up to now, unlike Ministers of the Crown and Scottish Ministers; the Bill puts the misjudgment of the Government of Wales Act 2006 right. Similarly, the Bill also removes the current restriction on the Assembly being able to modify Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas. It lists those functions that Ministers of the Crown and Welsh Ministers exercise concurrently or jointly, and the small number of Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas the Assembly could modify, with the consent of UK Ministers. All remaining Minister of the Crown functions in devolved areas will be transferred by order to the Welsh Ministers.
Taken together, these provisions deliver a settlement that will make it clear whom people in Wales should hold to account—the UK Government or the Welsh Government—for the decisions that affect their daily lives. I would like to inform the House that some minor clarifications have been made to the explanatory notes relating to some of these clauses, and revised copies of the notes are available for Members.

Mark Tami: The Minister is talking about extra powers and what is transferring across. What is he doing to help to get that information across to the people of Wales? Even under the current settlement, there is still a lot of misunderstanding as to who is responsible for what.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. The intention of this Bill is to provide that clarity, from which there will be the opportunity for greater communication. All Members in this House and stakeholders have the responsibility to help to communicate this, but one key function of the Bill is to provide a clear line between what the UK Government are responsible for and what the Welsh Government are responsible for, so that anyone living or working in Wales clearly knows not only who to give credit to when policies are going right, but who to hold responsible where policies or the impacts of policies are not as effective as the policymakers might have thought at the outset.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the other reasons why clarity is so important is so that we have far fewer examples of the Welsh Government and UK Government ending up arguing about things in the Supreme Court? Would clarity not assist in reducing that?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that, and this is the function of many of the clauses and much of the motivation behind them.
The Bill also strengthens Welsh devolution by devolving further powers to the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers. To complement the Assembly’s existing powers over economic development, the Bill devolves responsibility for ports in Wales. That will enable the Welsh Government to consider the development of ports in Wales as part of their wider strategies for economic development, transport and tourism. Major trust ports will remain reserved, given their national, UK-wide significance. That means Milford Haven, given its importance to the energy security of the whole of the UK, will remain reserved. We are also devolving consenting responsibility for all energy projects in Wales up to 350 MW, aside from onshore wind projects which are being devolved through the Energy Act 2016.
The Bill also streamlines the consenting regime for energy projects, providing a one-stop shop for developers by aligning associated consents with the consents for the main project. When the Welsh Government make a decision on a new energy project, they will also be responsible for consenting to the new substations, access roads and overhead power lines relating to that project.

Albert Owen: Will the grid connections be devolved as well? For the larger projects, many of the planning consents are local, but I am unsure as to the actual connection to the grid.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The purpose of the Bill is to give that one-stop shop in terms of consents for energy projects and all the consequences that follow thereafter, from access roads to overhead power lines and the connections thereafter. Those will of course be conducted in discussions with National Grid plc.

Glyn Davies: What is the position where an overhead power line goes through England and Wales? I am talking not just about the connection point but about a significant part of the power line. Is the position on that clear in the Bill?

Alun Cairns: That relates to the discussions with the National Grid, which, quite obviously, has an interest in the matter. I will happily provide further detail to my hon. Friend if he has specific examples that he would like to pursue.

David Jones: Further to the point raised by  the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), is it the case that the Assembly’s powers will be limited to 132 kV transmission lines, and not to the major grid connections to which my right hon. Friend is referring?

Alun Cairns: My right hon. Friend has expert knowledge. Obviously, he has some detailed understanding of this Bill and a range of other Acts that relate to such decision making. As this Bill progresses through the House, particularly through Committee, we will be able to examine, line by line, the consequences of each individual clause. I will happily write to him should he need further information.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alun Cairns: I wish to make a little more progress, then I will happily give way to a number of colleagues.
The Bill devolves a range of further transport powers, enabling the Assembly to legislate on all aspects of Welsh roads. It will be able to decide what the speed limits should be on Welsh roads; the regime for traffic signs and pedestrian crossings on those roads; the regulation of taxi services; and the registration of bus services in Wales.
There will be further powers on the environment. The Assembly can decide on whether and how fracking takes place in Wales, and Welsh Ministers will have a say on whether licences are granted for new coal mining operations. It is difficult to believe that, with all of the Wales Acts that have passed since 1997, the Welsh Assembly does not have the power to sanction a new coal mine; it needs approval from the UK Government.

Hywel Williams: I have intervened on the Secretary of State twice, and this will be the last time. On transport matters, what will the implications be for the transport commissioner for Wales, who, as I understand it, is currently located in Birmingham?

Alun Cairns: Discussions are ongoing between the Department for Transport, the Wales Office and the Welsh Government about the functions and role of  the transport commissioner, who serves the west midlands as well as Wales.
Welsh Ministers’ powers over marine licensing and marine conservation in the inshore area are being extended to the Welsh offshore zone.
The Bill devolves powers over sewerage and, as we committed to in the St David’s day agreement, we will consider the findings of the joint Government review on aligning the devolution boundary for water with the national boundary when it reports its findings in due course. That was a point raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards).
The Bill devolves a significant number of further powers, and I shall not go into detail on each this afternoon. The purpose of Second Reading is to consider the broad principles of the Bill before we move forward to the Committee stage. As I mentioned at the outset, the Bill devolves further powers that stem from the Smith commission. These include powers over equalities, the design of renewable incentives and the scrutiny of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. We are also giving the Assembly and Welsh Ministers a greater say in how the interests of Wales are represented within Ofcom. This is a strong package of further powers that moves Welsh devolution forward substantially and can be used to improve the lives of people in Wales if exercised thoughtfully by the Assembly and the Welsh Government.
I spoke about the Assembly coming of age, and the package of further powers for the Assembly truly gives form to that vision. Through this Bill, the Assembly will take control of its own affairs, including deciding arrangements for its own elections. It will be able to determine how its Members are elected, the number of Members, the constituencies and regions used in those elections and who is eligible to vote. As we promised in the St David’s day agreement, the Bill gives the Assembly full responsibility for deciding how it conducts its own affairs and regulates its own proceedings.

Kevin Brennan: The Secretary of State said that he would get to this point, but he has not answered my question, which is not about who will be able to vote, but whether the Bill will give powers to enable the Assembly to introduce compulsory voting if it chooses to do so. For clarity’s sake, it is very important that we know whether the answer to that question is yes or no.

Alun Cairns: I am happy to clarify that matter. The Bill gives provision for who votes rather than for compulsory voting.
The Assembly is a fully fledged legislature, trusted with passing laws that affect the lives of millions of people in Wales. It is right that the legislative framework in which it operates reflects that, and enables the Assembly to decide how it conducts its business.
The Bill also repeals the unnecessary and outdated right of the Secretary of State for Wales to participate in Assembly proceedings. Subject to the Bill’s progress,  I hope that my attendance at the Assembly in a few weeks’ time will be the last by a Secretary of State for Wales. I am sure that Members of all parties, both here and in Cardiff Bay, will welcome that—probably for many different reasons. I am sure that it will go  down well in all parts of the House. A key feature of  a mature legislature is that it raises, through taxation,  at least some of the money it spends. With power  comes responsibility. The Assembly must become more accountable to those who elect it. It must take responsibility for raising more of the money that it spends. The devolution of stamp duty, land tax and landfill tax, and the full devolution of business rates in April last year are the first steps towards that, and it is only right that a portion of income tax is devolved too.
In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that we will legislate to remove the need for a referendum to introduce Welsh rates of   income tax, which means that the Welsh Government can take on more responsibility for how they raise money, and the Welsh Government want that to happen.
There are practical issues—the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) raised some of these—to agree on with the Welsh Government, particularly how the Welsh block grant is adjusted to take account of tax devolution. Those discussions are already taking place, and I expect them to progress as the Bill passes through both Houses.

David Hanson: Will the Secretary of State clarify—I should possibly know the answer to this—on what the tax is based? Is it on residence in Wales or work in Wales?

Alun Cairns: It is residence in Wales. There will be further technical issues that we will want to clarify in discussions between the Treasury, the Welsh Government and the Wales Office. Those elements will be considered in further detail as the Bill progresses, and as the adjustments are agreed between all parties involved. The base is focused on residency rather than on where people work.

Chris Davies: Personally, I am very disappointed that, in this clause, we have broken a manifesto commitment. Is the Minister, who stood on the same manifesto, equally disappointed about that?

Alun Cairns: I have two points to make in response. First, it was the Wales Act 2014 that devolved tax-varying powers to the Assembly. This Bill will go one step further by removing the requirement for a referendum. Secondly, devolution has moved forward since that time. We can either seek to have the hollow argument about rowing back, or we can make the Welsh Government more accountable and more responsible for the money that they raise. Under current legislation and current arrangements, the Welsh Government already have responsibility for raising £2.5 billion of their own income, through council tax, business rates and other taxes such as stamp duty, land tax, aggregate tax and landfill tax. According to the forecast of the Office for Budget Responsibility, the devolution of income tax will transfer something in the region of £2 billion to the Welsh Government, which is a smaller sum than the one for which they already have responsibility.

David Jones: To develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), is it not the case that just over 12 months ago the Conservative party fought on a manifesto that pledged that there would be a referendum before any tax-varying competence was devolved to the Assembly?

Alun Cairns: My right hon. Friend played a significant part in the development of legislation relating to Wales when he was Secretary of State. He will recognise how quickly the devolution make-up of the UK has developed and matured in that time. This is the next logical step in making the Assembly more mature and responsible, and ultimately more accountable to the people of Wales, because it will have to consider how money is raised as well as how it is spent.

Paul Flynn: I am greatly enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but has his enthusiasm for referendums been diluted by recent experience, particularly the alternative vote referendum and the current referendum, which is a choice between whose lies people believe? Finally, was his faith in public opinion shaken by the large number of people who voted to name a boat “Boaty McBoatface”?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is fair to say that many of us might have referendum—or referendums—fatigue. The principle of devolving taxes was granted and supported in the Wales Act 2014, which transferred responsibilities in those areas without a referendum. The principle has been established, and we are taking it further through the devolution of income tax, removing the requirement for a referendum in the Bill.
I am conscious of time and the fact that many Members want to make a contribution, so I will conclude. The Bill delivers clarity to the Welsh devolution settlement and accountability to devolved government in Wales. It draws a clear line between what is devolved and what is reserved, so that people in Wales know whether to hold the UK Parliament or the Assembly accountable for the services on which they rely. It includes an historic transfer of powers to the Assembly and Welsh Government. It will strengthen Wales and it will strengthen the United Kingdom. It further enables the Welsh Government to deliver the things that matter to people living and working in Wales, and to be held to account for their decisions and policies. I commend the Bill to the House.

Nia Griffith: It is said that devolution is a process, not an event, a journey rather than a destination, and that is certainly true when it comes to the Bill. The journey has taken longer than it should have done, because in the draft Wales Bill the immediate predecessor of the Secretary of State seemed determined to drive us along a tortuous and convoluted path, going back the way we had come. That was in spite of an extraordinarily united chorus of navigators—everyone from Cymdeithas yr laith to the Conservative group in the Assembly—telling him to turn round the other way. It was quite an achievement to unite everyone against that Bill. Mind you, the Bill was so bad that it would have made the Assembly’s job impossible, and it would definitely have taken Welsh devolution backwards, not forwards. I am glad, however, that the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) eventually listened, put the brakes on, and prepared to change direction. We now have a piece of legislation that, while not perfect, is definitely a marked improvement.
I suppose like any lost driver, the right hon. Gentleman could be forgiven for hurling some irrational abuse at those of us trying to offer navigational advice. In February, he told us in no uncertain terms that we were launching some kind of separatist plot, that we had
“given up on the union”
and that all our criticism was actually a bid for Welsh independence. I hope that we can have a more sensible and measured debate today.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend will remember from the Welsh Grand Committee debate on 3 February that the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) said:
“There is nothing in the draft Bill that makes the Welsh Assembly consider whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary.”—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 3 February 2016; c. 61.]
Is my hon. Friend as pleased as me that finally the then Secretary of State realised what was in his own Bill?

Nia Griffith: Indeed, it was laughable at times when he noticed things to which we assumed he had already given his approval.
I want to make it clear at the outset that we welcome the reserved powers model, for which we have been calling for some time, as we feel that it has the potential to clarify the devolution settlement, and we welcome each of the new powers contained in the Bill. As the party that established the Welsh Assembly, we want to see our devolution settlement strengthened, with more powers devolved from Westminster to Wales. We are glad that the Assembly will have new powers over transport, energy and elections. As with the areas it already controls, the Assembly will be able to use those new powers to make different choices that reflect the will of people in Wales.
The powers over shale gas extraction will allow the Assembly to take into account the very real fears that people in Wales have about fracking. Labour has made it clear that, as the necessary safeguards cannot yet be met, we should not push ahead with fracking. We welcome the powers over energy planning consents for projects generating up to 350 MW, but we would certainly like full powers over grid connections devolved to Welsh Government. I hope that that is what we will hear from the Secretary of State.
That would not solve the delays with the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, which are due to the failure by Conservative Ministers to agree a viable financial framework for investors to proceed. I very much hope that the Secretary of State does everything he can to speed up the review, so that we can have a world first in Wales, with all the positive spin-offs for our manufacturing industry, rather than letting other countries steal a march on us.
The power to change the name of the Assembly means that we could call it a Welsh Parliament. Responsibility for the voting age in Welsh elections means that the Assembly could introduce votes at 16 for elections to the Assembly and to local councils. Whatever the Assembly decides, what matters is that those decisions will be taken in Wales by elected Assembly Members.

Chris Elmore: What concerns me about the devolution of powers to the Assembly on elections is that 16-year-olds could vote in local government and Assembly elections, but not in elections for MPs to the House. Does my hon. Friend share that concern?

Nia Griffith: Indeed. As a long-time supporter of votes at 16, which is now Labour policy, I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that that could be the case.

Simon Hart: Does the shadow Secretary of State accept that the new electoral legislation might enable a Welsh Parliament or Welsh Government to impose compulsory voting on our country? Would she support that or oppose it?

Nia Griffith: The Secretary of State has told us that he will clarify that, so we will know whether that will be possible. I understand from what he has said today that it is very unlikely, because he said it was about people who can vote, not the system itself, but we await clarification from him to know where we are going.
The Bill is designed to strengthen and streamline the current devolution settlement. For example, clause 18 allows the Assembly to implement European Union legislation directly where it relates to devolved matters. That is a sensible development, and one that I sincerely hope does not become redundant by the time the Bill goes into Committee after the referendum recess.
The biggest structural change in the Bill is the move to a reserved powers model, as recommended by the Silk commission. As Silk said, that should allow the Assembly to legislate
“with greater confidence and with greater regard to the purpose of the legislation, rather than being constrained by uncertainty”.
That change will bring greater clarity to our devolution settlement and, if the Government get the Bill right, it should result in fewer cases being taken to the Supreme Court. Too much public money has been spent on such manoeuvres.
I welcome the important statement on the permanence of the Assembly and of Welsh government in clause 1, and the inclusion of the Sewel convention that the UK Parliament will seek consent from the Assembly before legislating on devolved subjects. This recognises that just 17 years since the process of devolution began, the Assembly has become a fundamental part of our constitutional landscape. In 2011 the Welsh people voted for the Assembly to have full law-making powers, an important sign of confidence in the institution. Together with this Parliament, the Assembly should now be recognised as one of two significant legislatures that represent the people of Wales.
It was the Assembly’s ability to pass laws in devolved areas that the draft Bill put at risk in the most unnecessary and short-sighted way. It is a simple fact that as a law-making body, the Assembly must have the ability to change the law, but the draft Bill would have required it to pass a number of necessity tests before being able to amend the civil or criminal law. In the words of David Melding, the Conservative Chair of the Assembly’s Constitution Committee, these tests would have created
“an atmosphere of profound uncertainty”.
He went on to say:
“Taken to extremes, the very exercise of the legislative function could be compromised.”
I am pleased that the Government have seen sense and removed these tests so that the Assembly can amend the law when it needs to, but there are other tests that I will return to later.
The removal of the necessity tests means that a distinct body of Welsh law will continue to grow over time, a fact that poses a challenge to the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. We understand that the justice impact assessments outlined in clause 10 are intended to address this point, but a more long-term solution may need to be found at some point in the future. We trust that the working group consisting of the Ministry of Justice, the Lord Chief Justice and the Welsh Government will keep this issue under review.
On the areas of the Bill that require more work, I want to deal with the reservations, the necessity tests, and the devolution of income tax. It was a common theme in the response to the draft Bill that the list  of reservations was far too long. Even the Secretary of State’s predecessor expressed surprise at the number  of reservations—an unusual admission, given that it was his Bill. This rather suggested that there was a lack of a clear rationale for the compilation of that list. I note that the list of reservations in this Bill is very slightly shorter but still runs to 34 pages, and the justification for reserving some subjects is far from clear.
The root of the problem with the reservations in the draft Bill was that the Wales Office allowed Whitehall to have free rein in deciding which areas it was willing to devolve, rather than adopting the principled process that the Silk commission recommended. In its report on the draft Bill, the Welsh Affairs Committee said that Whitehall Departments should be given
“clear guidance about the questions they should ask themselves before deciding whether or not to reserve a power”,
and that this guidance
“must be published prior to the publication of the Bill, so that the final list of reservations can be assessed against the criteria given.”
It is regrettable that no such fresh guidance has been published, which would allow us to decide whether the list of reservations has been drafted with clear criteria in mind.
In response to the Select Committee’s report, the Secretary of State said:
“The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill provide a clear rationale for each reservation included in the list.”
I am afraid that this is not the case. The justifications offered in the explanatory notes are patchy at best. Most just state what is reserved, without explaining why. We will consider the list in more detail as the Bill proceeds, but the Secretary of State must be ready to justify each of the reservations and to present a rational basis for the final list.
It is already clear that some of the reservations are unjustified. The decision to create a special category of reserved trust ports is one example. This means in practice that control of every Welsh port except Milford Haven will be devolved to the Assembly. The Government have presented no sensible justification for this, or for the turnover requirement in clause 31, based on the Ports Act 1991. As the Bill stands, ports that meet an annual turnover requirement of £14.3 million or more remain under the control of the UK Government, while powers over those with a smaller turnover would be transferred to Welsh Ministers. This seems to create a perverse incentive, because if the Welsh Government foster economic development in smaller ports, which significantly increase their turnover as a consequence, the Welsh Government could find that they lose control over those ports.
In the absence of an explanation, we can only assume that the Government want to keep control of the most profitable ports, with a view possibly to privatising them in future, as indeed the Government considered doing in 2011. Strange, is it not, that this annual turnover is the same threshold above which ports can be privatised  under the 1991 Act? Previous privatisation proposals have raised serious concerns about asset-stripping by speculators and the fragmentation of ports, and these dangers would be just as real in the case of Milford Haven.
On the necessity tests, I am pleased that the most problematic of these, relating to civil and criminal law, have been removed from the Bill. This has made the Bill markedly clearer and more workable than its predecessor. However, two necessity tests remain in clause 3 and in paragraph 1 of new schedule 7B. As many witnesses noted during the Welsh Affairs Committee’s inquiry into the draft Bill, the problem with these tests is  the uncertainty surrounding the word “necessity”. A representative from the Law Society described it as “certainly not a term that is as well understood by lawyers as a concept”, which raises “the potential of legislation being challenged” not just in the Supreme Court, but in the course of other civil and criminal proceedings. Given these very real concerns, would it not be preferable to ditch the necessity tests entirely and retain the wording in the Government of Wales Act 2006, which avoids invoking this legally difficult concept?
On the ministerial consents, we welcome the simplified system proposed in the Bill, but the Government could go further. The Welsh Affairs Committee has recommended introducing a 60-day time limit for consent to be given or refused. A change to this effect would give greater confidence and I urge the Government to consider adopting it in law.
Finally, on income tax, the current situation is that the Welsh people would have to support the devolution of income tax in a referendum before the powers could be transferred to the Assembly. This Bill removes that requirement, meaning that the Secretary of State could devolve income tax powers via an Order in Council, without the Assembly even having to agree to it. That cannot be right. Allowing the Assembly to levy taxes is a very significant constitutional development, and one which should not take place without a clear democratic decision, so we are asking the Secretary of State to consider amending the Bill to require the Assembly to agree to the devolution of tax powers before they are devolved.

Jonathan Edwards: The shadow Secretary of State for Wales will be aware of the comments of the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, who said on the BBC on 9 November 2015, on the Scotland Bill, which gave full income tax powers to Scotland:
“When this Bill becomes law, it will present the Scottish Parliament with the opportunity to make Scotland the fairest nation on earth.”
I assume that that would be an objective for the hon. Lady and her party. Why, therefore, is she dithering about giving her colleagues in the Assembly the same powers as Scotland to achieve that objective?

Nia Griffith: It comes as no surprise that an intervention from the hon. Gentleman focuses on his party’s determination to see Wales become an independent state, regardless of the economic consequences. As I have just explained, it is crucial to give the Assembly the opportunity to negotiate a proper, fair fiscal framework  with a “no detriment” principle before it accepts responsibility for income tax. That opportunity is extremely important.

David Jones: The hon. Lady mentions what she sees as the need for the Assembly to consent to the devolution of tax powers, but what about the people of Wales? Given that the people of Scotland were consulted in a referendum prior to tax-raising powers being given, does she not think that the people of Wales deserve the same respect?

Nia Griffith: We have moved on since the last Wales Bill, but it is vital that there is a mechanism to establish a clear financial framework with a “no detriment” principle so that the Welsh Assembly can have the confidence to decide whether to accept the devolution of tax-raising powers.
As I said at the outset, this Bill is not perfect and  it will require amendments, but I hope that the UK Government will commit to working constructively with the Welsh Government and with Opposition parties to ensure that we deliver the strong, stable, workable settlement that the people of Wales deserve.

David Davies: I begin by thanking all the members of the Welsh Affairs Committee who took part in the pre-legislative scrutiny. When the Select Committee was formed after the last Parliament, I wooed Members in all parts of the House to encourage them to join the Select Committee, telling them tales of all the pertinent and interesting things that we had done in the previous Parliament: considering broadband, the Severn bridge, S4C and the Welsh language, and even visiting the Welsh speakers of Patagonia in Argentina. I think some of them may have been a bit taken aback when we spent the first year or so just doing pre-legislative scrutiny of the government of Wales Bill, with an endless series of academics and legal experts coming in and out to talk to us about legislative consent orders and the like, but everyone persevered, and I am grateful to them for that. I would like to think that we worked in a completely non-partisan fashion, and we offered a number of recommendations, which the Government have taken forward, and I will come to those in a moment.
I am a former Member of the Welsh Assembly, but  I actually opposed it in the first instance. I was very much involved in the 1998 referendum campaign, when I often heard the argument that laws that affect our nation should be passed by people who are based in our nation and elected by the people of our nation. I thought that that was quite a powerful argument at the time, and it is one that Government Front Benchers and Opposition Members might want to think about at the moment, because that principle that was certainly accepted at the time.
I and others had genuine concerns about the Welsh Assembly. One of my concerns was that, having got the Assembly, we would have a constant drive to give it extra powers, and that does seem to be what has played out over the past 17 or 18 years. My concern was that that could undermine the Union of the United Kingdom, and I therefore supported English votes for English laws because there has to be some answer to the English question. Opposition Members may not agree, but if  they do not, it is for them to come up with another answer to the English question. Asymmetric devolution, where we give more and more powers—not always even the same powers—to different legislative bodies around the United Kingdom while ignoring the largest constituent part, will surely not create stability. That was one answer to the question, and the other was to come up, finally, with a lasting solution that will keep us on an even track for years, which is what the Government have attempted to do.
When I have been into primary schools and I have been asked about the issue, I have tried to explain it thus—this is a fairly simple analogy, perhaps, but I like such analogies. At the moment, the Assembly is a bit like a legislative park: it has a slide and swings, and it is quite well maintained in its own way, but there is no fence around it. What has happened is that Members of the Welsh Assembly have wandered out of the park into slightly dangerous areas—areas inhabited by other people—while other people have perhaps even trespassed on their park. Ministers have therefore come forward with what is almost a legislative version of Alton Towers: an enormous theme park with all sorts of exciting things for Members of the Welsh Assembly to deal with, such as taxis, buses and sewage, but with a great big fence to prevent them from getting out and perhaps encroaching on other areas, while preventing other people from encroaching on their area. I therefore welcome the Bill as a move towards stability.
Let me quickly go through a couple of the Committee’s recommendations. Obviously it is important to work with the Welsh Assembly to come up with a deal that everyone can live with. Constitutionally speaking, if there were a majority in the House of Commons, we could do practically anything we wanted, but I think all of us accept that, with a Government from one party here and a Government from a different party in the Welsh Assembly, it would be foolish to push something on the Assembly that it clearly did not want—that might be possible constitutionally, but it would be a non-starter politically. I am glad that my colleagues accept that and that talks are ongoing.
I am glad the Government have removed the necessity test. I got a strong feeling from talking to legal experts that it just would not work in its proposed form. At the same time, however, it is important that the Welsh Assembly is unable to change criminal or private law in a way that would affect non-devolved areas or people living outside Wales, in England, so we must be mindful of that in all cases. For example, the Welsh Affairs Committee held a public meeting in Chepstow yesterday to discuss the Severn bridge, which is one of the areas that is being retained—not least, perhaps, because three of the four ends are in England. A resident of Gloucester made the point that if it were handed over to the Welsh Assembly, how would people living on the English side of the border who use it every day be able to raise concerns about delays, tolling or pre-payment systems? They would have no MP who could take up those issues for them, despite the fact that they would affect almost as many people in England as in Wales. Those principles are important.

Ian Lucas: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech carefully. I commend to him the work of the all-party group on Mersey Dee North  Wales, which is addressing precisely the issue that he raises. It works with Members on both sides of the border to deal with practical issues that affect all our constituents every day. We have the capability to do these things if we work together.

David Davies: I had to think hard about this, but I think it was the hon. Gentleman himself who, during the discussion of English votes for English laws, raised the concern that giving England the power to decide over NHS matters would affect his constituents who use the NHS in England. He felt that it was therefore wrong that English MPs should have the last word on that matter, and I would reflect that back to him. Whenever we hand things over to devolved systems, people living on the other side of the border who use whatever has been devolved can lose out, and that was the point I was making about the Severn bridge. However, I commend the all-party group of which he is a member, and I am sure it is doing everything it can to resolve these issues.
Let me turn to some of the other recommendations. The tax issue is obviously tricky. I am in favour in principle of having a referendum before tax-varying powers are devolved to the Welsh Assembly or, rather, tax-raising powers—let us be honest: Governments rarely vary taxes downwards. The issue merits further exploration throughout the Bill’s passage. Obviously, I will not vote against Second Reading, but I might discuss this issue further with Ministers. I am conflicted, and I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) because I suspect that the last thing anyone will want at the moment is another referendum on anything. I would not like to go back to my wife, Mrs Davies, and tell her that, having finished this referendum, we are about to start another one and I am going to throw myself headlong into it. I appreciate that that is rather a personal point of view, but I suspect that many people across Wales feel exactly the same way and really would not welcome a referendum. Surely, however, a way must be found to make sure that the Welsh Assembly is unable to go ahead with such powers unless full account is taken of what the public think.

Chris Davies: As someone whom my hon. Friend cajoled into becoming a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee under his chairmanship, and as someone who spent nearly 12 months scrutinising the draft Wales Bill, may I ask him whether he is as disappointed as I am that we could not scrutinise the withdrawal of the referendum during those many hours and months of our consideration?

David Davies: This certainly came through rather late in the day, and I think we made it clear in our report that we were disappointed that we did not have enough time to scrutinise the issue, but I suppose that it is now done with. I am here not to defend the Government but to scrutinise them, and I am very happy to do so.

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the evidence of the momentum of Welsh opinion is enough for us to forgo the joys of another referendum? Only 11% were in favour of Welsh devolution in 1979, but 64% were in 2011. Is that not evidence enough that the public will certainly favour the development and growth of the Welsh Assembly’s powers?

David Davies: I have to admit that it is certainly evidence that the public have accepted the Welsh Assembly and, therefore, that it is pointless for even arch-devo-sceptics such as me to try to resurrect that particular battle—I have no intention of doing so. There will be people taking part in the next election who were born under the Welsh Assembly. While the hon. Gentleman and I can remember a time before the Welsh Assembly, that does not exist for some people, although he can go back a bit further than I can. I canvassed against the hon. Gentleman in 1983. He used to come into my school to try to brainwash me, but he never succeeded. We have moved on a long way. If he was trying to put me on the spot, yes, of course we have to accept that the Welsh Assembly is here for good, and that brings me back to the point about stability and trying to make this work.
I am pleased that one of the points that has been accepted was about ministerial consent, such that when the Welsh Assembly intends to legislate in a way that may affect England or have some impact on non-devolved areas, it will have to get permission from the Government, which I fully accept. As we have heard, there have been delays while this has been going on, with the Welsh Office blaming the Welsh Assembly for that and the Welsh Assembly blaming the Welsh Office—I have  no idea who actually was to blame. Nevertheless, we recommended that if the Assembly applied to the Welsh Office for a consent and nothing was given within 60 days, the application should be nodded through on the basis that nobody had come up with an objection. Although that is not going into the Bill, it will, I believe, become part of the guidance—a convention, no less—so may I make a pitch for something? I have been here for a long time now and I have never had a convention named after me, but I think I am right in saying that this was my idea, so perhaps it could become the “Top Cat” convention.
I am glad that the Welsh Assembly will have powers to run its own elections. It would, if it wanted, be able to move out of the Senedd and to relocate anywhere in Wales—from Llanfihangel Tor-y-Mynydd, right down in the south-east of my own constituency, to Llanfair- pwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch in the north-east. Is not that wonderful? Assembly Members will have more powers than MEPs in Strasbourg, who cannot even decide whether to move to Brussels full-time. Ministers are giving them a really good deal—a really good legislative theme park to operate in.
While I do have concerns about the Bill, I will, in the words of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), give it 7.5 out of 10 and go along with it for the time being.

Albert Owen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) on his speech. I agree with him on one thing: the need for an English Parliament to balance things out. I am sure that that debate will come forward and that he and I will be on the same side for once.
I congratulate the Government on pausing the Bill, which was the right thing to do because they got it wrong the first time round. The St David’s day agreement was not a major declaration in Welsh history—it will not be remembered as that—but it did move us in the  right direction, and the Government did listen. I pay tribute to the Welsh Affairs Committee for its pre-legislative scrutiny because that highlighted some of the draft Bill’s weaknesses. I am sorry that the process took 12 months and it could not get on to other things, but it is important that before we bring forward major legislation in the House of Commons, we have the pre-legislative scrutiny for which Members—two of them, my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), are sitting here to my left—fought very hard. Before, Bills were rushed through without the necessary scrutiny.
I very much welcome the fact that the Bill has now been changed, with major parts of it dropped, not least, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said, the necessity test, which I felt was a step too far. Rather than a measure for moving forward with devolution, it looked a bit like the old secretary-general giving powers and the nod to what the Welsh Government could do, which did not sit very comfortably. I look forward to improving the Bill and, by doing so, we should act more as visionaries than victims. We have had devolution for a number of years and it has done a lot of good things. The additional powers will empower the Welsh Assembly to do more good things for the people of Wales, moving forward and taking the people with it. That is the idea of devolution.
I am a long-standing pro-devolutionist and I have fought three referendums—in 1979, 1997, and 2011. The score in those referendums was exactly the same as that for Wales on Sunday—a 2-1 victory. I am not so confident about the outcome of the referendum later this month, but I hope to be on the winning remain side. To me, devolution is about decentralisation and greater democracy, or it is about nothing.
The UK state has changed considerably since 1997. It is more open, democratic and decentralised. I congratulate all parties on playing their part in making the United Kingdom a more decentralised and democratic state. I also welcome the support from many Conservatives. The hon. Member for Monmouth, a former Member of the Welsh Assembly, has changed his stance on devolution, and the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) also used to be against it. It is important that we bring people with us as we move forward positively.

Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree that at the conclusion of the passage of the Bill and after the EU referendum, the time will genuinely have arrived for a constitutional convention to consider the future of the United Kingdom and its constitution, particularly with regard to how the nations of the United Kingdom and their devolved institutions relate to each other?

Albert Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. There has to be a time limit if we are going to have a constitutional convention, because we do not just want academics producing papers and having long arguments. We should draw on the experiences of the British state as it is today, with the degree of decentralisation that has already taken place, and look at the English question. I genuinely agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth that that needs to be looked at in a positive way. I welcome the extension of powers to the regions and cities in England.
I talked about the many people who have moved from being against devolution to now being very active pro-devolutionists. Many in this House, including those in the two nationalist parties, do not think we are going far enough or quick enough. I understand and respect that, but as a pro-devolutionist I want the devolution settlements to work for Wales and for the UK. I want us to move forward in a positive way, bringing the people of Wales with us. Rather than just having ideologies, we must have practical devolution that works. We are moving forward, and this Bill helps in many ways in doing that. It is no good having devolution that just devolves powers from London to Belfast, Edinburgh or Cardiff—I want it to be spread within the nations and within the rest of the United Kingdom. I have seen some bad examples in this regard. When I served on the Welsh Affairs Committee and we went up to Scotland, we saw a lot of centralising of services. I worry about that. As a real devolutionist, I think we need better devolution within the devolved countries, as well as England, to get the balance right. I want to see this Bill improved, but I say that as someone who is an advocate of practical devolution. I welcome the devolving of more powers.
I am not going to deal with the detail of the constitutional issues, but I do want to talk about the practical implications of devolving powers in the context of ports, transport, and energy. I have a specific interest in ports, as the Member for Ynys Môn, which has a principal port that has grown. I have seen how the flaws in the devolution settlement have hampered some of the development of ports. I recall a new berth being built in the early 2000s—I think it was 2003-04—when we had to get special consent from the Department for Transport, the Welsh Office and the Welsh Government, with one saying that it was not possible to build within the port. The new provisions clarify that. When the Welsh Government take over responsibility for ports, they will be able to develop them in a practical way, with the local authority doing the planning as well. I welcome that.
As a former member of the Energy and Climate Committee, I welcome the move towards devolving powers on fracking and on petroleum extraction on land, and, I think, if I am reading the Bill correctly, at sea in territorial waters. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that when he winds up. It is important for the Welsh Government to have those consents in the same way as they have consents for offshore wind and other things. Wales could be really radical in low-carbon energy and the low-carbon economy if it has the tools to do so. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on nuclear power. I think that we need to have baseload low carbon alongside renewable energies. We need to have the proper mix, and Wales can be a leader in low-carbon energy. I welcome the consent for power stations up to 350 MW. That is a very good step forward.
I am concerned, however, about the grid connections. The Bill gives consent to the Welsh Government in planning and various other areas, but it does so only for the distribution grid, not the national grid. The measures related to developments under 132 kV. I would like some clarification on that, because in my area and many other areas of Wales, National Grid projects are going ahead that will have a great impact on local communities. The Welsh Government and local government  are best placed to look at those, rather than National Grid, which is an organisation that looks to its own private interests.

Hywel Williams: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he has been doing on this matter in Ynys Môn, which is similar to that which I have been doing in Arfon. I share his concern that National Grid is not accountable to the people of Wales. It has supposedly carried out extensive consultations, but there has been no real consultation in our area.

Albert Owen: In the past couple of years we have highlighted the importance of giving the energy regulator more teeth to deal with that issue. We need the regulator on one side and the consenting authorities—which will be the Welsh Government, I hope, and the local authorities—on the other, so that we can put pressure on National Grid to take into account the impact that energy generation has on the environment and local communities, as well as on the national interest. I accept that there is progress in the Bill, but I would like clarification on that.
Clause 46 places a greater duty on the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before amending or establishing renewable energy incentives, such as feed-in tariffs and contracts for difference. That is important, because when Welsh Ministers then give consent, they will understand what it means for local developers and the total project. I would like to hear greater detail in Committee on what that means. A one-stop shop for energy developers sounds very good, but the involvement of multinationals and other developers will make it difficult.
I welcome the consent for fracking and extraction. As with other minerals, it is important that the Welsh Government have that. It is a tidying-up exercise.
I have already touched on port consent. The road transport powers are welcome, but they do not go far enough. Wales needs a more integrated transport system that takes into account sea, road and rail, rather than an approach that breaks them up. I want greater powers over rail. The franchise is coming up for renewal both of the Virgin Trains service on the west coast and of the Arriva Trains service on the Welsh borders. The Welsh Government will have an input, but the approach could have been tidied up a little bit better.
The Bill addresses predominantly constitutional issues, but it has important practical implications for Wales. I welcome the scrapping of the necessity tests and the fact that consents have been simplified. That is very good. I also welcome the reserved powers model, which a lot of Members from across the parties have worked together to establish.
I am concerned about income tax, an issue I argue about with some of my colleagues at the National Assembly. I have been involved in a number of referendums. If we think that the European referendum is going to be close, let us not forget how close the result was in 1997. I remember the differential between Scotland and Wales. I believe that if income tax powers for Wales had been on the ballot paper, the result would have been different. I say that as someone who argued the positive case for devolution, and that is what I am now doing for remain.  We have to be delicate in the way we talk about devolving income tax and what it really means to the people of Wales. If the Government are saying that the Bill will introduce it without further consultation with the people of Wales and without a proper financial settlement, we will be in trouble. I do not want a huge gap appearing as a result of the block grant being reduced and it having to be made up out of general income tax.
I am not against the principle of devolving tax-raising powers to the Assembly—we have already done that in other measures in the Wales Act 2014—but I have also consistently supported the principle of holding a referendum when a major constitutional change is proposed, and I think that the devolution of income tax is one such change. That is the principle that I held in 1997, and I still hold it now. We need a further debate on the issue, because it would be wrong for the UK Government to make that decision after saying in 2014 that they were not going to make it. Indeed, the Conservatives, who are now in the majority here, told the country that they did not want to devolve income tax powers. I am cautiously concerned about the way in which the change is being made.

Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the result of a referendum that asked the question, “Do you want to pay more or less tax?”, would be so predictable that it would not be worth having the referendum?

Albert Owen: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but he is a democrat, like me.

Paul Flynn: Up to a point.

Albert Owen: Well, I am a total democrat by comparison with my hon. Friend. The tax-varying powers that the Scottish Government enjoy were given in a referendum. That is my point. There has to be consistency on these matters.

Hywel Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman concede, however, that framing a proper and understandable question that allows for a clear response is not easy? Does he have a suggested wording for such a referendum question?

Albert Owen: I have not thought of the wording, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that democracy is difficult. We have to make a positive case for things and do so honourably. I did not understand, and was not able to explain in great detail, the question on extending powers in 2011, but I argued, along with members of Plaid Cymru, that the Welsh Government deserved to have lawmaking powers. Tax-varying and lawmaking powers are simple questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has said, it may be difficult to win an argument, but we have to stick to principles. I have been consistent on this matter since 1997, and I do not think we can just jump into it after all the different elections we have had. However, given the current referendum, I understand the climate of fear that people find themselves in at present. I want to be radical and forward looking, and I want the Welsh Government to be so, too.
When the Minister winds up, I want him to clarify the issue of election powers. On the issue of lowering  the voting age from 18 to 16, am I right in thinking that  the Welsh Government will have the power to do so and that it will apply to Welsh Assembly and local government elections only? If there were a Welsh-only referendum, such as one on tax-varying powers or another Wales-specific issue, would the Welsh Government have the power to lower the voting age from 18 to 16? I am an advocate of that and have argued the case for it in this House for some time. This is an opportunity for us to give those responsibilities to the Welsh Government.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff West and for Wrexham have been campaigning hard on compulsory voting. This is a great opportunity for the Welsh Government to be radical. Let us give them the tools to do the job. If the Welsh Government decide that they want compulsory voting in Wales, that would be a good step forward.

Alun Cairns: rose—

Albert Owen: I give way to the Secretary of State. I realise that I have taken up more time than I wanted to.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman is making a considered speech. I have had further information since the earlier questions about compulsory voting. I am happy to clarify that compulsory voting is permitted under the Bill as drafted.

Albert Owen: That is excellent news, and it is on the record. It is a victory for the three of us on the Labour Back Benches that we will now have the opportunity for compulsory voting in Wales, which I think is a radical step. Hansard will make that known, but I hope the media in Wales are watching the progress of the Bill. After all, it is not dry as dust, but is about the real issues affecting people, including compulsory voting.

Alun Cairns: rose—

Albert Owen: I am sure the Secretary of State is going to reconsider his considered view.

Alun Cairns: I just want to underline the fact that it perhaps provides even more justification for the justice impact assessment that may well be brought forward in relation to the legislation.

Albert Owen: It is the Secretary of State’s job, with his extra responsibilities and wages, to decide on the details. As a Back Bencher, I am saying that I am very proud that the Welsh Government have the opportunity to have compulsory voting.
As I have said, I want devolution to work. I want the Bill to work, but I want it to be considerably improved. I think the name of the National Assembly for Wales is a matter for the Assembly itself, but I do not see anything wrong with the current name. I am not a revolutionary, but I remember from reading about the French revolution when I was studying history that the French people wanted a national assembly. They did not fight for a parliament, and I do not think there is much in that word. I am very proud, as I know the French people are, of having a National Assembly. The National Assembly is a good term: it is a good name  and it has a good meaning. It is a sovereign body, and I think the name should be kept, but that is my personal view.
I want a strong Wales, a strong United Kingdom and, yes, I want the United Kingdom to remain within the European Union. I agree that the Bill will provide some extra tools for the Welsh Government to do their job. I think there has been progress, and I congratulate Carwyn Jones on being re-elected as First Minister of Wales. I hope that he will get a good Bill once it has gone through its parliamentary stages, so that he can continue to do his job and serve the people of Wales with a Labour programme that will have been enhanced by the Bill.

David Jones: I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing the Bill. I have to say, however, that that should not be interpreted as meaning that I greet it with unalloyed enthusiasm. This is the fourth major piece of constitutional legislation aimed at conferring devolved powers on Wales in less than 20 years. The very fact that we are in the Chamber to debate it yet again shows just how flawed the original devolution settlement was and how important it is that, on this occasion, we try to get it right at the fourth time of asking.
The Secretary of State has very kindly presented a briefing note on the Wales Bill, in which he acknowledges that
“there is more work to do”,
and that there are “unresolved issues” and “unfinished business”. He goes on to say that he is looking to
“amend the Bill if necessary during its parliamentary passage.”
I must say that he is probably not likely to be disappointed in that regard.
The opening clauses of the Bill follow the current fashion for declaratory legislation. We are solemnly told that the
“Assembly and the Welsh Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.”
We are also told that they are
“not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales voting in”—
yet another—
“referendum.”
We are told that there is a “body of Welsh law”, which should not of course be in any way confused with a Welsh jurisdiction. There is a declaration that in effect incorporates the Sewel convention into statute, in that the Bill declares that this Parliament
“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly.”
Such declarations are all well and good, but they are in danger of overlooking the constitutional fact that this Parliament is supreme, which makes one wonder about their worth and whether they are in reality mere window dressing.
It is somewhat ironic that, having quite rightly abandoned the necessity test, the Government are now apparently introducing a normality test. As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, that means that the courts might intrude on parliamentary sovereignty by deciding or being asked to decide whether a piece of legislation passed by this Parliament is, so to speak, normal.
The Bill does of course change the devolution settlement from a conferred powers model to a reserved powers model, which is deemed to make matters clearer. I have to say that I do not believe that a reserved powers model is, as many contend, a panacea. The reserved powers model is in reality simply a mirror image of the conferred powers model. The nature of the model is less important than the clarity of language, as other Members have pointed out.
That is particularly important in relation to whether the reservations are comprehensive. The danger is that if the reservations are not comprehensive, there will be problems. I am glad, for example, that my right hon. Friend has not emulated a former Secretary of State for Scotland, who made sure that Antarctica was a reserved matter, and that we will not therefore see an attempt to create a new Patagonia on that continent.
The necessity test has been abandoned to the extent that it is no longer the case that the Assembly can modify criminal and private law only where modification
“has no greater effect otherwise than…is necessary to give effect to the…provision.”
That was a positive invitation to go to the Supreme Court. However, there is still a necessity test in  relation to the law on reserved matters. Proposed new section 108A(3) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 will provide that Assembly Acts cannot modify the law on reserved matters unless ancillary to a provision that is not reserved, but modification cannot go further than is necessary to achieve the devolved objective. Words such as “necessary” and “normally” lack objectivity, and are therefore subject to interpretation, including, in difficult cases, by the Supreme Court. I do not believe, therefore, that simply changing the model of devolution will necessarily achieve the clarity that everyone wants. In Committee, I believe it will be necessary to test whether the reservations are truly comprehensive to avoid any further difficulties of the sort we have already experienced. To be fair, however, the Secretary of State has acknowledged that the Bill is a work in progress, and he will no doubt be expecting such tests and, if necessary, significant amendments in Committee.
I do not want to dwell too lengthily on individual provisions, but some matters are worth mentioning. First, as the Secretary of State will have anticipated from my interventions, I have a huge concern about the proposal that income tax varying powers in the 2014 Act should now be triggered without a referendum. As a Conservative, I have a particular concern, because at the last general election—despite the apparently rapid passage of time, I remind him that it was only just over a year ago—I and Conservative colleagues campaigned on the basis that the powers would not be triggered without a referendum. Indeed, when I was specifically asked on the doorstep whether the powers would be imposed on the Assembly without consent, I made it absolutely clear that a referendum was contemplated. I must say that it is positively disrespectful of the people of Wales for this Parliament to seek to impose new tax-raising competences without consulting them first.
That was done in the case of Scotland, and despite the interventions already made by Opposition Members, it is perfectly possible to formulate such a question and, in the case of Scotland, one that could be answered in  the affirmative. If the Scots are entitled to that, surely the people of Wales should be entitled to the same level of respect. I invite the Secretary of State to think about that, and to consider whether, in the circumstances, the Bill should be amended by the deletion of clause 16.
Secondly, although this may appear to be a minor point, I find it difficult to understand the rationale for devolving to the Assembly the setting of speed limits. Wales and England have a continuous, porous border, and every day there are many thousands of journeys back and forth across the border. It does not bear scrutiny that there should potentially be different speed limits on either side of that border—it makes no sense. I cannot understand what possible reason there could be for devolving the setting of speed limits. What mischief is it aimed at? Who asked for it? Why is it necessary?
Thirdly, there is the issue of electricity generating consents, set out in clause 36. I intervened on the Secretary of State about that. The 350 MW limit provided for in the Bill seems to have little practical significance, because wind generating stations are expressly excluded. The granting of energy generation consents for capacities of more than 350 MW will remain with the Secretary of State, and there are few conventional power stations with an output of less than 350 MW.
The worrying fact is that although the Bill is silent on the subject, it devolves competence to the Assembly for all onshore wind farms, with no upper limit at all. I refer the Secretary of State to the excellent Library note, which points out that the Energy Act 2016 has transferred competence for wind farm consents to local planning authorities. A piece of Welsh legislation with which I have no doubt we are all familiar, the Developments of National Significance (Specified Criteria and Prescribed Secondary Consents) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, provides that all wind farm developments in Wales are designated as developments of national significance. According to the Library note, which I have no reason to doubt, that means that all such developments, whether of up to 50 MW or more than 50 MW, will be determined by procedures set by the Assembly.
Given the thrust of policy at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, I suggest that the consequence of that will be a rush to develop wind farms in Wales. Indeed, I suggest that there may be a free-for-all. Areas such as my constituency, Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnor, which already have a lot of wind farms, are likely to be under further pressure for wind farm developments.

Jonathan Edwards: I hesitate to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of scaremongering, but the pace of development of renewable technologies relies on the subsidy that is available, which is determined by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

David Jones: That is not the point that I am addressing, which is about competence. Given that the upper limit for wind farm consents in Wales is currently only 50 MW, it is alarming that it is now likely to be unlimited.

Jonathan Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I have two TAN 8—technical advice note 8—areas in my constituency, and in one of them the only developments that have occurred have  been determined by Westminster. The local planning authority, which is responsible for developments of below 50 MW, has turned them down.

David Jones: That may be the case, but I say with huge respect that I think the hon. Gentleman is missing the point, which is about competence. It seemed clear from the Secretary of State’s response to my intervention that what I said was news to him. It was based on the Library note, which I believe is accurate. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter, and he may well wish to table amendments himself in Committee.
The Bill is a further step in the process of devolution, and I believe that it is a brave attempt to rectify the errors of the past. However, I strongly question whether, in its current form, it will do the job that it is intended to. As I said, the Secretary of State anticipated amendments in his briefing note, and I have no doubt that he will look forward to them with great anticipation.

Paul Flynn: Congratulations to the Government on the improvements to what was an ugly draft Bill. We have before us a Bill that will be a genuine step forward in devolution.
I was taken by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who talked about Welsh people seeing themselves not as victims but as visionaries. Absolutely right—we can go forward on a confident note, but not by having referendums. The whole system of our democracy is in peril at the moment, partly because of the debasement of political discourse, which is the worst it has been for a couple of centuries. The worst example was in the referendum on the alternative vote. Here was an opportunity for an advance in the quality of our democracy, but it was not argued in that way. As I came in every morning at Vauxhall Cross, anti-AV campaigners were telling people that those who voted for AV were the sort of people who believed in seeing babies die in hospitals and our brave soldiers die in Afghanistan. That seemed a rather extraordinary argument, but it was the one put forward by those opposed to AV. It was based on the idea that AV would cost money—a tiny amount of money, really, because democracy is expensive—and that the first thing the Government would do would be to cut the protection of our soldiers in Afghanistan and the money provided to baby units in hospitals. It was an outrageous lie, but that is currently the quality of parliamentary debate.

David Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman therefore like to dissociate himself from suggestions that voting for independence from the European Union would lead to world war three and the collapse of western civilisation?

Paul Flynn: If the hon. Gentleman reads his local paper, he will find that I did precisely that the other day—it was next to a column by him, so I thought he might have had the grace to read my column, even if he did not read his. I thought it was rather better written, although I am slightly biased. I made the point in that article that I am embarrassed by the lies of people on my side, just as I treat with contempt the lies of people on the other side. That is the choice facing the public—whose lies they will vote for next week.

Eleanor Laing: Order. While I am certainly enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech, the House would appreciate it if he addressed the matter in hand, which is the Second Reading of the Wales Bill. I understand that he is giving some illustrative examples in order to come to his point, but I am sure he will do so quite soon.

Paul Flynn: The point is, of course, that the Bill covers how we deal with income tax. I challenge anyone to imagine some future time when there will be somebody for tax and somebody against it. The argument is unwinnable—it is impractical to suggest that there will be people marching down the streets with banners, saying, “What do we want? More tax! When do we want it? Yesterday!” It is so unlikely that it is not worth wasting money on.
The public are in a strange, deep and profound anti-politics mood. They are more interested in jokes and trivial points than in the leadership that we offer as politicians, which is damaging to us. I gave the example earlier of Boaty McBoatface—the public showed their contempt in that way, and they are continuing to do it.
I have supported the idea of proportional representation for all my parliamentary life. I remember that in two of the general elections that we have had in my time here, the Conservative party secured 20% of the Welsh vote but did not have a single representative among the 40 Welsh MPs. That was a distortion of democracy that we put up with—we all believe in our own forms of democracy.
Here we have something remarkable in Welsh devolution. In 1886, Cymru Fydd was founded in this city by a couple of Welsh MPs and some others, seeking a form of devolution for Wales. It has been a long, slow process. In 1888, the Welsh Parliamentary Party was formed, from all Welsh MPs. It has a spectral and occasional existence now, but it still goes on, and has met in the past five years.
One of the joys of my political life, and one of many things I feel fortunate about, is that I am in this generation of MPs. Those who, from the 1880s onwards, fought to achieve devolution made no progress whatever; in our generation, we have got there. The process has been very slow, mainly because of the power-retentive features of this House. It does not want to part with anything; it sees these offspring and is rather jealous. Now is the time to make progress and give the Welsh Assembly the dignity of making more of its own decisions and having a title that befits it.
It is interesting that, for the first time in history, the two Ministers for Wales and the two shadow Ministers are all Welsh speakers. That has never happened before. Yet the status of the Welsh language in this House is the same as that of spitting on the carpet—it is out of order. Speaking Welsh is disorderly behaviour. If I were to turn to Welsh now, you would quite rightly have me ordered out of the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is a novel way to treat one of the beautiful languages of these islands. It should get the same dignity. I am sure that that will come about.
Generally, I accept the Bill, but we should not follow the very limited restriction on the Welsh Assembly’s adjudication on electrical generation schemes.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is making a great speech,  as ever. It strikes me that, as with Scottish issues, the Bill ultimately boils down to the question of where Welsh powers will reside, in Wales, the most democratically elected forum of Welsh opinion, or in Westminster. Surely anyone with a modicum of trust in the Welsh people will understand that they can make better decisions for themselves than can Scottish MPs or English MPs.

Paul Flynn: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In 1953 I took part in a march in Cardiff in which I carried a Labour party banner that said “Senedd i Gymru”. It did not say that we wanted a half Parliament in Wales, but that we wanted a Parliament. That has been part of my political life. One thing that enthuses me is that that was a tiny minority movement in 1953. In 1979, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and I took part in a very painful referendum—well, it was a painful result, anyway, as we scored less than 12% of the vote in Wales. That was a very emphatic rejection. The 1997 referendum was absolutely knife-edge, with about a 0.5% majority. But in the last measure of public opinion in Wales, in 2011, the vote in favour of giving considerable powers to Wales was 64%. The momentum is there, so we can go ahead and give Wales the tax-raising powers that any dignified self-governing Assembly should have, without going to the people for a referendum that will be in the hand of the Crosbys, the lobbyists and those who are not telling the truth.

Angus MacNeil: The point the hon. Gentleman has just made illustrates the fact that when people are free from media scare stories and have the experience of making decisions for themselves, that only grows in popularity. When we contrast Cardiff with Westminster, it seems to me that Cardiff comes out on top each and every time.

Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn said, let us not think of ourselves as victims—an obsession with a sense of victimhood is debilitating—but as people going forward as victors. That is how we should be going.

David Davies: Just to take the hon. Gentleman back a little and pick up one point, the Welsh language is being treated with a good measure of respect here. It is used regularly at the Welsh Affairs Committee. I would have liked it to be used in the last Welsh Grand Committee, and I am sure we will get there in the end, with cross-party support.

Paul Flynn: At business questions last week that was emphatically turned down by the Leader of the House. I hope that we can have a sensible discussion on that. It has been a huge success in the Welsh Assembly itself, where the language is used quite freely and in a very relaxed way. That is greatly to the benefit of Wales.
My main point about the Bill is about the level set in clause 36, which will act as a great restriction on Wales’s progress in using the greatest source of power that we have. It has long been neglected, yet it is like our North sea oil—it is that great cliff of water that comes up the Bristol channel twice a day. It is a source of immense power. It is entirely predictable, unlike wind or solar power—we know when it is going to happen—and it can be tapped in so many ways.
To our credit, we have already used that source in hydropower. But under the scheme in the Bill, even the hydropower station at Ffestiniog would be too big for the Welsh Assembly to authorise, at 360 MW. The one at Rheidol would have been fine, but Dinorwig would be too big at 1,800 MW. Those stations are a wonderful way of using that power. They are entirely demand responsive. The excess electricity can be used in off-peak hours to pump the water up to certain levels and then bring it back down again.
The greatest chance Wales has to produce power that is entirely non-carbon is through using the tides. Where would we be under the restriction in the Bill? The Swansea bay lagoon would be just within the 350 MW limit. But the Newport lagoons—both start at the River Usk, then one runs in the direction of Cardiff and one the other way—are both 1,800 MW. They have enormous potential. The resource is there, and the topography  is perfect.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is making some very valid points. Does he agree that the huge investment by energy companies in storage technology means that renewables could seriously take off, making them something that would be hugely beneficial to our economy in Wales?

Paul Flynn: Absolutely. It is the untapped resource. I know that there are objections to various other forms of power. Another question that comes in here is about nuclear power. The scheme in the Bill will not allow Wales any control over Hinkley Point, which is very close to us in Wales; although it is almost certainly doomed now. The future scheme at Wylfa would be outside the limit. Small modular schemes mostly start at about 300 MW, but go up to about 700 MW, so if people wanted to go down the road of nuclear power, they would be outside the scope set in the Bill. We should allow the visionaries of the Welsh Assembly to go ahead and develop power. We have an enormous resource. We could be a vast power station for ourselves and for the whole United Kingdom.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Does he find it telling that in my constituency there was a plan to develop a hydroelectric scheme at 49 MW to avoid the bureaucracy of having to come to London for permission? Now that the changes in the Bill are afoot, the people in charge of the scheme are talking about going up to 350 MW. Why should they be constrained by what seems an entirely arbitrary limit?

Paul Flynn: It is a great shame. The Rheidol station is of that order, at 45 MW. The stations exist. They enhance the beauty of the scene—they do not detract in any way. Wind turbines do and so are very unpopular, but no one knows that Tanygrisiau is there. The three great pump storage schemes in Wales are entirely acceptable and fit in with the beauty of the hills, or improve things, because of the lakes. There is no pollution of any kind. It is the way forward—it has been successful. The two main ones were built in 1963, which is a long time to have been manufacturing electricity from a wholly benign source without appreciating its value. We go on from there to tidal power.
I believe the people in the Welsh Assembly should be in charge of decisions on power. We can be a great source of power generation in a way that is wholly British and free. It will last eternally, and, as I say, it is entirely predictable. I hope that point will be considered.
If the Bill goes forward with goodwill from all parts of the House, we should remember the story of devolution in Wales and how it has grown up and can stand tall among the nations of the world. It is a matter of pride to see the development of the Welsh Assembly in that beautiful building in Cardiff.
We have just opened a centre in Newport. A marvellous poem by Gillian Clarke about the story of Wales and the struggle for our rights over the years is embossed on the side of Friars Walk. She writes about the Chartists who came down to Newport in 1839, with the cold rain stinging their faces and
“heads bowed against the storm like mountain ponies”
marching for something they believed in. Twenty were shot and killed outside the Westgate hotel. That is commemorated today, with the six points of the People’s Charter, on Friars Walk. She writes about that and the rise of devolution:
“…they stormed the doors to set their comrades free,
and shots were fired, and freedom’s dream was broken.
A score dead. Fifty wounded. Their leaders tried,
condemned, transported. The movement, in disarray,
lost fifty years. Then came, at last, that shift
of power, one spoonful of thin gruel at a time,
from strong to weak, from rich to poor,
from men to women, like a grudged gift.”
The grudged gift keeps on giving and now we have another example of it. The gruel is a little thicker and the spoon is a bit bigger.

Byron Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), for the constructive way in which they have engaged across party divides to try to ensure that the new Bill will be a positive step in the devolution process and a positive move for the people of Wales.
I might not have started out being one of the great advocates of devolution, but I have, through my years as a Member of the National Assembly, come to realise that the devolutionary process is something that is important not just to Welsh political life, but to Welsh cultural and national life on many levels. I am sure that the Bill will continue to improve and add to the devolution process, and I look forward to scrutinising it during its passage through the House.
I will talk briefly about a topic that has been well-exercised today: taxation powers for the Welsh Government. There is a famous American slogan that there should be no taxation without representation. I am concerned that the new tax powers for Wales will receive no seal of approval from the people of Wales and no democratic process, and will involve no representation for the people of Wales. At the key stages of the devolutionary process, the people of Wales have been able to debate and have informed discussions about their future and what they  want their democracy to look like. Of course, that process led to the creation of the National Assembly and law-making powers for Wales. Taxation powers represent a major step in devolution, so they deserve the same level of debate and discussion.
As an Assembly Member, I am worried about the level of scrutiny not just in the Assembly, but in Welsh political life, where there is limited media and political analysis. That is part and parcel of the Assembly being a young institution in the process of finding its distinct place in Welsh life, and its own methods of scrutinising Government and debating major issues.
The huge sea change in the level of scrutiny is something that has really struck me since I have become a Member of this House. One cannot fail to be impressed by the House’s extremely long and detailed process of scrutinising Bills. The Investigatory Powers Bill that has just been through the House is a key example of that. We had Committee reports, a Public Bill Committee and, perhaps more importantly, a constructive debate about not just the Bill, but society, technology and the crucial issues of privacy and security in a world that is becoming ever more dangerous. The process highlighted the crucial role of a constructive Opposition in the passage of legislation. It highlighted the significant role of the Back-Bench MP and reflected positively on a Government who wanted to engage in a process with all parties to achieve the very best piece of legislation.
This is the process that is missing in Wales. There has, until now—I am sure some of the new Assembly Members will change this—been very little in the way of Back-Bench scrutiny of proposed Welsh legislation. I have witnessed Bills being essentially nodded through, with serious and sensible amendments refused simply because they have come from an opposing party. It has simply been a case of, “This is the legislation. It is what we as a Government want and that’s the way it is going to be.”
That is not the way an institution that now has major powers over everyday life in Wales should be run. We need a wider debate in Welsh society and political life about our democratic processes, and our scrutiny over the Welsh Government and their processes. This is a genuine cross-party point. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree about the need to discuss these issues without fear or favour to ensure that the devolution process is the very best it can be.

Albert Owen: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about scrutiny in both this House and the Assembly. I chaired the Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, so I know the length of that process. Does he agree that one reason why scrutiny is lighter in the Assembly is because it has fewer Members? The number of Members who are not on the Front Bench and in the Executive is an issue. Does he think we should look at the number of Assembly Members as this Bill progresses?

Byron Davies: That is a difficult question to answer. Should we increase the number of Assembly Members, particularly in the current climate in which the amount we spend in the world of politics is scrutinised? I had great difficulty coming to terms with that when I was an Assembly Member, but the honest trust is that if we are going to have proper scrutiny, we will have to consider increasing the numbers. I accept that many AMs are in government and unable to scrutinise.

Craig Williams: Is it not right that we should be debating this? The whole point about devolving electoral arrangements is that the Assembly should make these important decisions, not this Chamber?

Byron Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point.
This is what concerns me regarding taxation powers: the Welsh people have not had their voices heard. They have not had the chance to hear the arguments, to debate with their neighbours and friends, or to discuss with their local politicians what the new powers will mean for their lives. The powers are significant not just to family lives, but to the economic future of Wales. I have felt that the Welsh public deserve a major discussion about this most crucial of issues, which will affect their day-to-day lives.
I have made my points about how we view the Assembly and how it scrutinises the Welsh Government, but I hope that I will be forgiven for going into my concerns regarding the Welsh Government. The previous Welsh Government were, I am afraid, completely adverse to any scrutiny or constructive criticism, as I saw at first hand. I was an Assembly Member until May last year, and I saw a complete lack of will and want in that Government to hear an opposing view or to discuss a different solution. That led to the appalling running of certain services in Wales. For example, there is a complete lack of an integrated transport system that would be fit for a modern and outward-looking nation. Legislation was not to the standard it should have been and there were scandals such as the regeneration investment fund for Wales. The Welsh Government scandalously sold land massively under value—we are talking about millions of pounds—and deprived Welsh taxpayers of key revenues, which highlighted the very inadequate processes for and governance of major public assets. That leaves me deeply sceptical about that Government’s ability to control billions of pounds of revenue that they raise themselves. I do not make that point to be party political, but it would be remiss of me and remiss of the House if we did not consider such issues, which are absolutely crucial to our constituents.
As it stands, I am completely unconvinced of the Welsh Government’s ability to run a Treasury. That Government have chronic and long-standing problems regarding their ability to run projects, so I feel uneasy about giving them such powers. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will assure us that the Treasury and the Wales Office will ensure that there is a clear process so that the Welsh Government are prepared and equipped to use these powers in a way that befits the Welsh people.
I look forward to scrutinising the Bill. I know that it could not be in better hands than those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). I know that they will listen and speak to Members to ensure that the Bill benefits the people of Gower and the rest of Wales and, above all, to give the people of Wales greater confidence in further devolved powers.

Chris Evans: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill is the latest in a long line of Wales Bills to be presented to the House since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. Part 1 of the Silk commission resulted in the Wales Act 2014, while part 2 has resulted in the Bill before us today, aside from its elements that were covered by the famous, great St David’s day agreement, which I am sure schoolchildren will discuss for the next 50 years.
The Bill represents the latest part of a long saga of political tinkering around the edges of devolution in Wales that has been a constant theme in political circles since the establishment of the National Assembly. Devolution has brought with it the possibility that Wales can make its own choices and go its own way, with its own Government elected by the people of Wales. The Welsh Government are entrusted by the people of Wales to act in their interest, and I am confident they have done so, in so far as they can under the current constitutional settlement. However, I believe that vast swathes of Wales have been turned off by the constant political debate over the constitutional arrangements. It almost seems as though the argument is, “Once we have the powers to Wales, all the problems in Wales will be solved.” That is a simplistic view of  a complicated situation. What we need is certainty in a Welsh constitutional settlement that will last for longer than a few short years, or until we have the next commission funded by the Government.
This Bill is much better than the draft Bill. Like many Members, I had problems with the necessity test. To me, that was a simple case of a lack of understanding of devolution. It treated Wales as a Commonwealth outpost, with the Secretary of State doubling up as the governor-general. I am delighted, as many others will be, that the Bill removes provisions for a further referendum on income tax powers. I for one am looking forward to 23 June and the end of another referendum.
Until we settle this matter of constitutional certainty once and for all, considerable time—and, yes, political opportunity—will be spent arguing the merits of further constitutional change. As someone who came into politics to change the world, I do not want to waste the next five years, as we have the past 15, debating the dry subject of constitutional reform. That subject not only turns off the political commentariat, but costs money.
When the Silk commission was set up, the then Secretary of State for Wales gave it a budget of “around £1 million”. Overall, the Wales Office spent £1.3 million on the Silk commission between 2011-12 and 2014-15. If we do not show ambition with this Bill and leave more to be argued and debated for years to come, what will be the cost? How many more commissions will we need to create? A freedom of information request to the Wales Office found that the 2011 referendum on powers to the National Assembly was expected to cost upwards of £8.2 million. How many more referendums will we need to go through, and at what expense, before we reach a final constitutional settlement?
The real question and the real test of any Wales Bill, or any Bill that comes before us, is this: what in this Bill will speak to the people of Wales and address their day-to-day concerns? Although support for further powers for Wales is strong, with 43% of respondents to the BBC/ICM St David’s day poll this year saying that the National Assembly should have more powers, and only one in three people saying things should stay as they  are, the issue does not really enter the daily lives of my constituents. I cannot recall a single instance in the past few years when a constituent has written to me about the Welsh constitutional settlement. Indeed, when I was knocking doors just a month ago, not a single person spoke to me about the Wales Bill, the Silk commission or the Williams and Smith commissions. All these people have entered the lexicon of the commentariat who go absolutely mad for constitutional reform, but to the people on the streets, they mean absolutely nothing.
Having read the Bill, I think it is little wonder that people are switched off when the issues discussed are of so little relevance to their lives. The dry subject of constitutional reform might float the boat of commentators and politicians in this place and in Cardiff Bay, but it is simply not something that people talk to me about on the doorstep. The prospect of Wales switching from a conferred to a reserved powers model might have excited some, and the necessity test might have caused a row here and in Cardiff Bay, but I have to say that people on Blackwood high street in my constituency who are trying to feed a family on a shoestring budget, who are signing on in the jobcentre as they have still not been able to find a job, or who are desperately trying to find ways of making do after their disability payments have been slashed care very little about the Wales Bill.
The one element of the Bill that will have a direct impact on my constituents is the devolution of some—not all—income tax powers to the Assembly. I have long been an advocate of regional taxation. I genuinely believe that the challenges we face in Wales are different from the ones faced here in London, which is an economic powerhouse, and from those in the north, in Scotland and in other regions. However, as we pull ourselves to pieces over whether we can devolve income tax or have a referendum, we should reflect that this means nothing if we look at the Scottish model. The Scottish Parliament has never raised income tax or used the powers given to it in 1999. It seems an absolute moot point.
The fact of the matter is that we are an economy that is heavily based on the public sector, rather like in Northern Ireland and the north-east. If we are allowed to start reducing income tax rates, we may start attracting ever greater numbers of entrepreneurs and wealth creators to the Welsh economy. It is contradiction in terms  that Northern Ireland, which has high public sector unemployment and fewer businesses and entrepreneurs than it should—very much like Wales—should be allowed to slash its own corporation tax in the hope of attracting more businesses, as its neighbour in the south has done, while Wales cannot.
Why is it good for Northern Ireland to have the power to alter corporation tax when Wales does not? Although it is true that Northern Ireland has a land border with the Republic of Ireland, which has notoriously low corporation tax rates, Ireland is still only a short distance from Wales, so we are competing with it. We are a small island race. We can get to Ireland and back in one day, yet we are not allowed to compete. Northern Ireland is allowed to reduce its corporation tax, attracting massive business to come in and create jobs, while we are to be fed with the scraps. Yet again, it seems that Wales is being forced into the role of the poor cousin. Do we want a powerhouse economy, moving forward and attracting high-tech, high-skilled jobs, or we do we want to continue to be reliant on the public sector and  grants from the European Union? Regardless of how the referendum goes in a couple of weeks’ time, that is no future for the people of Wales.
Wales is a country with access to cutting-edge technologies and a skilled work force. General Dynamics in Oakdale in my constituency, and BAE Systems in Glascoed, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), underline this fact. They attract some of the finest minds from our universities, but how can we attract more good people unless the Government are given the lever of corporation tax to encourage more large businesses to come to Wales, bringing jobs with them, and the lever of income tax so that people can have more money in their pockets to spend in our local economies, such as on the high streets that I mentioned earlier? I believe that that is the way forward.
As for the rest of the Bill, it seems that, again, there is a working group of officials from the Wales Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Welsh Government and the office of the Lord Chief Justice to monitor the prospect of a Welsh jurisdiction. That, surely, is legislating for legislation’s sake. The joint legal jurisdiction in England and Wales has been maintained for just under 500 years, and I believe that tinkering around the edges of that could cause more problems than it would solve. We must either commit ourselves to a wholesale split and devolution of policing and justice, or retain the union of the England and Wales legal jurisdiction.
Those are the questions that we should be asking in the Bill, but we are not asking them. Again, we are just tinkering around the edges. We shall be back here again in two or three years’ time with another Wales Bill, which will cause more constitutional uncertainty and more arguments in which people are simply not interested. The message, in my view, should be that the Bill could have been so much more. It could have settled, once and for all, the constitutional argument in Wales. It could have allowed constitutional arguments to be put aside, with a line drawn under them, so that we could get on with the things that really concern people: health, education and transport. Those are the bread-and-butter issues that affect families and constituencies across Wales.
The Bill represents yet more tinkering and yet more argument. It must be realised at some point that what we discuss in this place when we talk about the constitutional settlement is far removed from what concerns people in Wales. I support the Bill, but I am extremely disappointed, because it could have been so much more—it could have brought about the ambition that we need in Wales.

Craig Williams: The Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee is no longer in the Chamber, but I should like to thank him for a fascinating insight into both the previous Wales Bill and the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought to the House today to start a new journey. The pre-legislative process certainly gave us an insight into how legislation is put together, but, perhaps more broadly, it also gave us an insight into the devolution journey on which we have embarked with the creation of the National Assembly for Wales.
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State and his team for the amendments that have brought us from the pre-legislative Bill to what is before us today. The dropping of the necessity test is very welcome, as are the inclusion of the Severn tolls in the reservations and the removal of various elements. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the cross-party Welsh Affairs Committee to establish how we can improve the Bill further as it proceeds through its various stages.
Let me begin by tackling the elephant in the room. I support the income tax provisions, but I think that the horse has bolted to some extent. If we look at business rates and council tax receipts, we see that more than £2 billion of income is being raised, and is already devolved to the Welsh Government. That is more than income tax, and it gives the Welsh Government a bit of accountability, which is welcome. The more accountability we can give that institution, the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies) touched on some of the more worrying aspects of the competence of the Welsh Government to date. It has taken many forms, but it has, I am afraid, been Labour-led since the creation of the Assembly.
I understand the passion expressed by some of my colleagues, and I find it difficult to separate my heart from my head. My heart says “Do not give the Welsh Labour Government any more power. They must prove that, to date, they have been competent in regard to education, health, local government and economic development.” At the same time, my head says that this is a very principled debate about the devolution journey and the powers that the House needs to give the Welsh Assembly as an institution. A journey is taking place in my own head, or a fight between poor performance and more principled considerations about the localism agenda.
I was very taken with the pragmatic approach of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) to some of the battles over devolution, but I wanted to focus for a moment on the fact that the income tax provision constitutes a very welcome step. It will improve transparency and accountability, although we are already there with more than £2 billion of revenue from council tax and business rates, which the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly completely control.

David Jones: How comfortable is my hon. Friend about being asked to break a manifesto commitment?

Craig Williams: Well, the world moves on. I cannot say that I am ever terribly comfortable about breaking a manifesto commitment, but when it comes to income tax, I have said consistently to my electorate—throughout the general election period and before—that we need accountability in the Welsh Assembly and, more important, in the Welsh Government. I believe that passionately. My constituency, more than most, has seen at first hand some of the real scandals caused by complacency, such as the scandal of the Regeneration Investment Fund for Wales, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. Some of the most expensive residential land on the main site, in Lisvane, was sold at agricultural prices. There is a complacency, and until the place has real accountability and is shaken up, I believe we are going to continue in the same vein. I have made that  very public statement, throughout my time as a candidate and in this House. I stand here comfortably, although I accept the wider point about the manifesto. However, the people of Cardiff North and of Wales put us here to make unpopular and difficult decisions, as well as the popular and easy decisions, and I think this is one of the former.

Chris Davies: My hon. Friend stated that his constituents are unhappy with what has already gone on under the Welsh Assembly, so does he not agree that the timing of this Bill is not right? Let the Welsh Assembly get its house in order before we pass to it even more commitments.

Craig Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for making one of his classic interventions. I touched on this when I spoke about the heart and head. I disagree fundamentally with a lot of what the Welsh Labour Government do, but I support the institution of the Welsh Assembly, and I want to strengthen it and one day return a Welsh Conservative Government who have the levers and powers to get on and do the job.
I will touch on bus regulations a little later. I refer Members to my declaration of interests: I served on the board of a major bus company for many years, and I welcome the bus regulations we are giving to the Assembly, because of the importance of issues such as integrated transport.
I do not want to jump around the issues too much, but the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) mentioned corporation tax, and there is always something else to get. Now business rates are with the Assembly. In terms of the Cardiff city deal and getting high-value companies from London to Cardiff, we have discretion over business rates, and we can do exciting things with them. Rather than talk about more powers again, we should encourage the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Assembly to put a visionary bid together with the powers they already have, if we manage to get this Bill through with income tax included.

Chris Evans: I was talking about the fact that we need certainty now in the constitutional settlement. I would be happy to see corporation tax devolved in the Bill, in the hope we will not be revisiting this, as we have done over the last couple of years. The reason I mentioned corporation tax is the example of the Republic of Ireland, which has been very successful in getting some large companies to headquarter there.

Craig Williams: I accept that point, but I hope the hon. Gentleman sees where I am coming from. Complacency sinks in when we give the Assembly more powers. It thinks, “Right, we’ve got them, and rather than think about what to do with them, we’ll think about what we want to ask for next.” What could be done with corporation tax and what can already be done with business rates is a good example of that.
I want to talk a little about the capital side of this. The more revenue streams and accountability we are able to give the Welsh Government, the more capital they can borrow, so the more capital they can put into infrastructure projects off their own bat, and we can judge them on the success of that. The Commonwealth games bid will require some capital. More revenue streams, and more accountability and transparency in  being able to raise money, would mean that we could make a Commonwealth games bid in Wales. We could put more into the south Wales metro, too, and top up the Cardiff city deal. At the moment, the Welsh Government come to Westminster to access borrowing powers—the old Welsh Development Agency powers, for example—but this Bill tidies things up: it enables the Welsh Government to get on and hopefully deliver for the people of Wales; If they do not, we can more appropriately judge their failure or success.
I have touched on the worrying parts of the RIFW scandal and how I see that as an example of a lazy approach and attitude within the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly more broadly, but I want to move on to the single legal jurisdiction question for Wales. I believe that a single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales has served us well and should be maintained. Although we acknowledge that the Assembly is now going to make a greater body of law, and I commend this Bill for tackling what has been a very thorny issue, I agree that the disruption and cost of establishing a separate legal jurisdiction is not justified at this time. A separate jurisdiction would create upheaval and huge cost for no good reason.
Another issue that has been modified owing to the scrutiny of the draft Bill is the formal recognition in this Bill of a body of Welsh law made by the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Ministers—or Welsh Secretaries, as I should now call them. This change reflects the importance placed on this matter during the revision process in the past few months. Most of the debate on a distinct or separate jurisdiction revolved around the necessity test, and I am hoping that the Bill in its present form will have lanced that boil. I am sure that we will hear more about that from Plaid Cymru Members later. The Welsh Affairs Committee, on which I am proud to serve, concluded that the necessity test was wrong and recommended that it be replaced. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s approach to this issue.
The body of Welsh law continues to grow. I have made the point in the Welsh Grand Committee and the Select Committee that the Assembly is making Welsh laws and a body of Welsh laws exists, and that the Assembly should have the security and confidence to stand up and say that, rather than constantly looking for reassurance from Westminster that it can have its own body of laws. We can now build our legal infrastructure around the body of Welsh laws, but we would risk economic and commercial damage if a separate jurisdiction were pursued. We would risk a flight of talent, given that Cardiff has strong professional legal services. We would also face problems with our universities. The University of Aberystwyth is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), and I would not want to put it or any other Welsh university in a position of having to debate whether to teach English or Welsh law to international students. That might be a difficult one for the dean of law at Aberystwyth. For all those reasons, I support the Government’s belief in maintaining a shared legal jurisdiction, and I welcome the work being undertaken by representatives of the Lord Chief Justice’s office.

Mark Williams: The short answer is that I am sure the head of the law department at Aberystwyth would enjoy teaching both English and  Welsh law. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the positives that has come from the Government in recent days is the at least partial acknowledgement of the need not for a separate legal jurisdiction but for a distinct legal jurisdiction? The difference seems to have been lost on some Conservative Members. People are talking about a separate jurisdiction, but many of us here are calling for a distinct one.

Craig Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We debated this matter in the Select Committee and in the Welsh Grand, and I constantly said that I thought we already had distinct arrangements and could not understand what was being asked for. He was right, however, and the Secretary of State has made it clear in the Bill that those distinct arrangements will be put in place.

Mark Williams: But surely the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that the creation of the working group that the Government have announced is a step in the direction of a distinct jurisdiction. Otherwise, we shall be revisiting this matter in the years to come, as the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) has suggested.

Craig Williams: I am going to touch on something that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said. I agree that this is a pragmatic solution to a thorny issue, and I cannot see why the distinct arrangements would not stand the test of time as the body of Welsh law emerges. This is a significant change.

Liz Saville-Roberts: In that case, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the findings of the working group will be extremely important to our discussions on the Bill? Given that it is going to report back in the autumn, should we not ensure that its findings are incorporated in the Bill?

Craig Williams: Being a new Member of Parliament, I am guessing that that will fit into the timetable of the Bill’s passage through the House, given that we do not exactly rush things here. I think the Secretary of State alluded to the fact that that work would be carried out coterminously. I look forward to the findings; they will be important and they will perhaps bring Members together to deal with the thorny issue of jurisdiction. I am looking forward to the findings of the working group and I hope that they will be produced in a timely fashion so that we can consider them in Committee. These proposals represent a significant change from those in the draft Bill.
I support the proposals on the judicial impact assessments. I do not follow the rationale behind the objections to them. Any sensible institution or Government would have them, but I look forward to sitting down and discussing that rationale with anyone who opposes them. Adopting those assessments would be a sensible approach. Similarly, the electoral arrangements have been a long time coming. As I have said, it is not right that we in this place should debate how many Assembly Members there should be or at what age people in Wales should have the vote. The new arrangements are quite right, and if the Assembly chose to call itself the Welsh Parliament, I would be entirely relaxed about that—a rose by any other name—given that it is making laws, generating revenue and borrowing against capital.
In drawing my contribution to a close, I wish to talk about two practical things. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned ports and the protections on trust ports, particularly Milford Haven. Some 62% of all UK natural gas is coming through that port, so I judge it to be a port of national infrastructure on a UK level, and it is entirely warranted that there is protection there. I have alluded to a welcome, practical measure on bus regulation, which I see as an excellent step forward for what the Welsh Government have been trying to do on integrating transport. It is also an excellent step forward for local authorities. I served on the board of Cardiff Bus, the largest south Wales bus company, and I think this measure will enable the integrated approach between buses, city regions and the train services.
I hope that the Bill has a speedy and successful passage through the House, and I very much look forward to seeing what the Welsh Government do with these powers and, as I said to the hon. Member for Islwyn, the business rates and the huge powers and levers the Welsh Government currently have to better the lives of my constituents and the people of Wales. I commend this Bill, I thank the Secretary of State and his team, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

Hywel Williams: After the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, the Prime Minister promised the people of Wales that just as the rights of Scottish voters will be “respected, reserved and enhanced”, so, too, would the rights of the Welsh voters. He promised that Wales would be “at the heart” of the devolution debate. Since then, the Wales Office has published a draft Wales Bill and now we have the Wales Bill proper, billed as the UK Government’s response to the cross-party Silk commission. The draft Bill failed to deliver on the recommendations of the Silk commission—a commission established by the Tories themselves. Its recommendations were supported by all four of Wales’s biggest political parties, including the Secretary of State’s own Welsh Tories. Plaid Cymru, civil society groups, and people in all parts of Wales had hoped that the re-drafted Wales Bill would return to the consensus of the Silk commission and would offer the people of Wales the devolution settlement that is ours as of right, one that is sustainable, ambitious and fair. Today, we are very far away from that wholly reasonable goal.
I freely acknowledge that, compared with the draft published last autumn, some progress has been made in making the Bill fit for purpose, but we still have a long way to go before this Bill will become fit for enactment. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has acted on some of the criticisms of the previous draft, for example, on the reservation of criminal law and the necessity tests. The recognition of the fact of Welsh law is very much to be welcomed, but it is just a recognition of the reality of the situation in Wales. There remain serious concerns regarding the complexity, uncertainty and indeed lack of coherence in some parts of the Bill.
Throughout Wales’s long devolution journey, Plaid Cymru has always tried to get the best possible deal for everyone and anyone who chooses to make their home in Wales Those people who call Wales their home best  understand the needs of our country. I believe it was Gwynfor Evans who once said that anyone can be Welsh, as long as they are prepared to take the consequences. One of those consequences is that those who live in Wales face up to deciding for Wales, but we recognise that not all parties share this view, which is why we signed up to the Silk commission. It was a cross-party commission, with nominees from each of the four biggest parties in Wales, along with academic experts, who talked, formally and informally, with people all over Wales. It was a truly representative commission and the two reports it produced represented a true consensus.
That consensus was not easy to achieve. We in Plaid Cymru gave way on some points, ones that were important to us but not to others, as did other parties on their issues. The Silk process involved all parties making compromises, including my own, so it was deeply disappointing and frustrating to see the Wales Office dump that true consensus in order to find a lowest common denominator and then call it an “agreement”. Far from being an agreement, the St David’s day White Paper and this eventual Wales Bill fall well short of the consensus that Silk worked so hard to achieve. The profound criticism of this Bill, after just one week, is in the same vein as that of the discredited draft Bill all those weeks ago. The criticism is really striking when we contrast it with the consensus and welcome that surrounded the Silk recommendations in Wales.
What happened to the consensus on the idea that Wales’s natural resources should be in the hands of those living in Wales? What happened to the consensus on the idea that it is the people of Wales who are best placed to determine our policing policies? What happened to the consensus on the idea that it is the people of Wales who best understand our country’s transport needs? Under this Bill, Wales can set its own speed limits, but drink-drive limits are just too complicated for little old us. One of the historical political controversies in Wales relates to water. Water is much too valuable a resource to be left to the Government of Wales, but, yes, we are allowed to have sewerage.
I have many concerns regarding the current list of reserved policy fields, and I shall return to them later. I wish to start by focusing on the foundations of the draft Bill. I should stress that Plaid Cymru warmly welcomes the move to a reserved powers model—that is, to move away from the current devolution model in which the settlement lists areas on which the Assembly can legislate to a model in which the settlement lists areas where they cannot.
There was an unusual and welcome consensus across all of Wales’s six biggest parties on the need to move to a reserved powers model. That consensus stems from the lack of clarity on where the responsibility lies, especially as compared with the Scottish dispensation; the challenges to Welsh legislation in the Supreme Court under the current dispensation; and the danger of further and increased challenges in the Supreme Court if we do not get this sorted out.
It was thought that moving to a reserved powers model would provide clarity both legally and for the public as to what is and what is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly. This is a problem for MPs as well, and it is no small matter. When considering legislation, I do not know how many times I have had  to ask: “Is this Wales only? Is it England only? Is it  England and Wales only? Is it Great Britain, or is it even Great Britain and Northern Ireland?” Whatever people’s opinion on devolution—whether pro or anti—we can all agree that such ambiguity is bad for democracy.
Moving to a reserved powers model should also be about changing the ruling attitudes towards devolution. It would be for the UK Government to justify whether something should be reserved, rather than justifying why something should be devolved. This is devolution based on subsidiarity—real subsidiarity, as I said to the Secretary of State earlier—rather than retention. It is enabling rather than hobbling, and trusting and respecting rather than suspecting and resenting. That is the case, however much some Whitehall Departments might snarl—and I think we know who they are.
I fear that these principles—the foundations of the arguments in favour of the reserved powers model—have been lost, and the result is a Bill that is unclear, somewhat unstable and possibly unsustainable. We have gone from a position as recently as last May where all six of Wales’s biggest parties agreed on a way forward, to a position now where the UK Government are alone in thinking that this Bill delivers a lasting settlement. The Wales Office has admitted that, rather than using the Scotland Act 1998 as a starting point—a devolution dispensation that has avoided the constant legal challenges and political tinkering that has bedevilled Welsh devolution—it has used the Government of Wales Act 2006, the failed devolution settlement that we are trying to replace. In fact, it is a model based on the administrative devolution in the 1960s, from the creation of the Welsh Office, as it was then known, onwards. It is a deeply outdated model and not fit for today, let alone tomorrow. The Bill claws back the powers for which the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly in 2011, and returns to a long list of reservations. The Western Mail, which, I concede, is not always 100% correct, lists 267 powers that
“Westminster doesn’t want Wales to have”,
ranging
“from axes to outer space”.
Almost every measure in the draft Bill was roundly criticised, but there was particular ire for the lengthy list of reserved powers. The Wales Office admitted that the list was too long, and promised to shorten it. It may well have taken out a few reservations, but the fact that the list has increased from 42 pages to 44 suggests that the ones that remain are even more long-winded than before.

Alun Cairns: rose—

Hywel Williams: There might be a reason for that, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will enlighten us.

Alun Cairns: On the list of reservations, simply measuring something according to the number of pages is not necessarily the most sensible thing to do. In the Scotland Act 1998, reservations are listed according to subject matter with a broad headline. A requirement in the Wales Bill is to make the list far more specific, so exceptions to the reservations are included, which naturally lengthens it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the spirit in which those reservations are defined, to prevent our ending up in court challenging each other.

Hywel Williams: I am grateful for that point, which we have discussed before, and I have said that the number of pages might not be the best indication of the number of reservations or their complexity.
There are new reservations in this Bill that were not in the draft Bill, for example, on matters as important as the Severn bridges—that nagging toothache for our economy in the south.

Jonathan Edwards: Going back to the intervention by the Secretary of State, does not the fact that the number of pages has increased indicate that this is not the bonfire of the reservations that we were promised?

Hywel Williams: No doubt that is something that we will debate. I relish the opportunity to discuss the reservations and hear the Secretary of State or his colleagues justify them. The explanatory notes include a description or explanation of the reservations but, as far as I can see, there is very little justification for them. I therefore look forward to hearing about that in subsequent debates.
The report by the Wales Governance Centre and University College London on the draft Bill described the list of reservations and said:
“Complexity is piled on complexity...the potential for legal challenge casts a long shadow.”
I see little evidence that the revised list is much clearer. It remains, alas, a lawyer’s playground. As I have said, the shift to a reserved powers model was supposed to be made in tandem with a shift in mentality—that is extremely important—to determine what needed to be reserved, rather than what should be devolved. It is clear that the Secretary of State has instead facilitated a Whitehall trawl of the powers—a pick and mix of what the Sir Humphreys fancy bagging for themselves—sometimes based on principles no deeper than the chance to shout “Mine!”
If the Secretary of State is serious about creating a lasting devolution settlement, he cannot simply flip the current settlement from the conferred powers model to the reserved powers model, then allow Whitehall to pick and choose which tasty bits of power they want to hang on to. The process must be built on principles. I agree with the principles that he identified—clarity and coherence—but I would add proper subsidiarity.
Some time ago I had an entertaining lunch with the Irish Minister responsible for a new Irish language Act. He was quite candid, loquacious and hilarious. He had been to Canada and Quebec and had thieved—his words—a little bit of their language law. He had been to Wales and has snaffled bits of ours. He had been here and there in the rest of Europe, and hey presto, here was their language bill. We do not need to roam two vast continents, stitching together a bit of this and a bit of that. A model is already there for the borrowing and—perhaps Plaid people will forgive me for saying this—it is a home-grown British model called the Scotland Act.
The Silk commission hoped that moving to a reserved powers model would be a chance to rewrite the settlement to remove some of the defects of haste and inconsistency that have so far marred legislative devolution in Wales. The list of reservations does not reflect that hope. The director of the Wales Governance Centre has described   the Bill as being underpinned by a “patronising attitude” and as continuing to regard Wales as “enjoying a lower status” than the other devolved nations. In practical terms it will undoubtedly lead to more blame shifting between Cardiff and London. That is the last thing that people in Wales want and the last thing that the governance of the people of Wales requires.
Both the Welsh Affairs Committee, which has a Tory majority, and the National Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, which was also chaired by a Tory, recommended that each reservation should be individually justified. That recommendation has been ignored and, as I said, I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State or his colleagues making up for that as we go into Committee.
The Wales Governance Centre has offered a list of considerations for identifying functions that should be devolved: is it necessary to retain function X for the functioning of the UK as a state? Does retention of Y make the governance of the UK less clear or comprehensible? Does retention of Z undermine the workability, stability or durability of the devolution settlement? These are the questions that the Secretary of State should be asking himself for each and every one of the reservations in the Bill and I hope we will have time to hear him go through those steps. Simply making hundreds of reservations for no given reason is not acceptable, particularly when the real rationale seems to be a deeply suspect power grab by Departments of Government that have failed Wales so spectacularly over the past few years.

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. He talks about the need to analyse each and every one of the proposed reservations. Does he think that two days in Committee will be sufficient to achieve that?

Hywel Williams: I am not sure. I am in two minds about that. If we have full days of debate, that might indeed be the case. I have been here too long and remember days of Welsh debates which have been interrupted by statements, urgent questions and all kinds of shenanigans that have led to Welsh debates being curtailed. If we have protected time, we shall see. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) will be looking into this point further in his remarks and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be here to hear him.
I challenge the Secretary of State to respond today and offer justifications for why he believes the people of Wales do not deserve the same responsible government as the people of Scotland. As has been said, the Secretary of State voted for the Scotland Act. He voted to give the people of Scotland a Government with full control of Scottish natural resources, policing and criminal justice. He voted to make the Scottish Government responsible for raising a significant proportion of the money that they spend. He has also voted to devolve policing to Manchester, yet he refuses to do so for Wales. What practical reasons are there to insist that Welsh police forces follow the agenda of English forces? Those who were fortunate enough to be in the House last night would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for  Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) making just those arguments. What reason is there for focusing largely on problems prevalent in urban England, such as knife crime, rather than on meeting the needs of Wales, and in my case, particularly of rural Wales? What practical reason is there for setting, for example, a 350 MW limit on the Welsh Government’s power over energy—a point that I made to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is no longer in his place—when there is no such limit on the Scottish Government? I raised the wholly practical question about that in my point to that hon. Gentleman. I will expand a little on it now, with the permission of the House.
A local hydroelectric scheme in Snowdonia was going to limit itself to 49 MW—that is the old limit. Those involved told me quite plainly that that was to avoid the entanglements of London bureaucracy. Now they are aiming for 350 MW, and they could produce more, but why should we skew reasonable economic development on the basis of a number that has, as far as I can see, been plucked out of the air? I would like to know why the figure is 350, and not 351 or 349.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Silk commission. Does he not accept that the 350 MW was a recommendation from Silk and that it was arrived at based on a proposition from members of all political parties?

Hywel Williams: We have moved on from the Silk commission, and we are now looking at this issue—[Interruption.] If the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary can contain themselves, I will explain the position in a moment.
I would still like to hear the justification—not from the Silk commission, but from the Secretary of State—as to why the figure is not 351 or 349. What practical reasons are there for devolving the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay but not the lagoons proposed in the Cardiff area or in Colwyn bay, in the area of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones)? What is the justification? I am interested, and we might even get an answer. However, there is no sensible argument for this limit—for me at least—and there is no limit in Scotland. Unless such decisions are based on reason and principle, the devolution settlement will never be long-lasting, and we will perpetually be debating the constitution.
It is not Plaid Cymru who is the constitutional obsessive here, despite frequent challenges that it is; it is successive Westminster Governments who have chosen Sir Humphrey’s fudge, mudge and fix over empowering the Welsh Government to settle down and get on with the job of bettering the lives of the people of Wales—and, boy, do they have a job on their hands!
The Bill is, among other things, an attempt to keep as much power as possible in Whitehall, while devolving as little as possible to Cardiff. As far as I can see, it is not likely to build a stable, sustainable and fair devolution settlement for our country. However, the Wales Office has an opportunity to give us the devolution settlement we need: one that leads not to court cases and blame shifting, but to economic growth, a healthier NHS and a better educated workforce—one that will actually work and stand the test of time.
Plaid Cymru will be tabling amendments to the Bill to ensure that the people of Wales are treated with respect. We will demand a devolution settlement that facilitates progress, rather than puts up blocks. I still hope that the official Opposition will support those amendments. The opportunity to shape Wales’s constitution does not come around that often.
The Bill is crucial to all of us who care about the future of our country so I do not want to be forced to vote against it, and neither do my hon. Friends. There are many things in it that we welcome, including powers over fracking and the devolution of electoral arrangements, for example. For the party of Wales—a party whose very reason for existing is to empower the nation and the people of Wales to run their own affairs—it would be a painful decision to vote against those powers, and I sincerely hope the Secretary of State will not force us to do that. I therefore urge him to take our criticisms in the constructive spirit in which they are intended and to bring forward his own amendments to rescue the Bill.
I urge the Secretary of State to reflect on the significance of what he is building. He is reshaping the constitution of Wales, and he has an opportunity to create a significant shift in Wales’s future—to build a new Wales for a future history of Wales. This is an opportunity to construct the foundation on which his country’s economy will be built, his country’s NHS will be healed and his country’s schools will be transformed. He should not waste it.
The Bill falls well short of the Silk commission’s recommendations. However, the reality is that the commission, despite its good work, has now been superseded by the Scotland Act. Wales must not be forced to lag behind. The Secretary of State can be stubborn and push the Bill if he wishes to, but he will be in danger of pushing yet another failed Bill and of becoming a failed Secretary of State for Wales, and I would not wish that on him. He would be one in the line of a great many others who, as Secretary of State for Wales, have failed to serve Wales all that well. He should heed the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who last night made a compelling case on, for example, devolving policing. We heard not a peep from Welsh Tory Back Benchers or Welsh Labour Members on this matter, let alone ascertained their opinions in the Lobbies, with the honourable exception of the Secretary of State himself, who I think I spotted sloping through the No Lobby. He should also take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who called for him to follow in the footsteps of the great Conservative reformers of the past—politicians who foresaw the future and legislated with foresight rather than submitting to the constraints of the present.
Disraeli wrote novels, now largely unread, as well as getting in a bit of prime ministering while he was at it. When asked if he had read “Daniel Deronda”—a very good novel—he replied:
“When I want to read a novel, I write one.”
The Secretary of State might likewise wish to see a good Wales Bill, so he should write one. I am sure he is capable of doing that, but this one is not quite it. He and his Under-Secretary now have a rare opportunity to prove that they are politicians of vision. My hon. Friends and I envy them. As to the Bill, I say with our national poet, Waldo Williams,
“Beth yw trefnu teyrnas? Crefft
Sydd eto’n cropian”,
or, “What is ordering a kingdom? A craft that’s barely crawling.” I say to them: do not waste this opportunity to build your nation into the country that it could be—the country that, by rights, it should be.

Chris Davies: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). Even though I did not agree with a great deal of his speech, I congratulate him on the passion for and commitment to Wales that we are accustomed to hearing from him.
I both congratulate and sympathise with the Secretary of State and his Minister. It is never easy taking over a Bill that was started by a previous Secretary of State, but he has brought this forward, and I congratulate him on doing so. I sympathise with him because, as many will now know, many Members within his ranks are very unhappy with the Bill as it stands. In fact, taking 11 Members from Wales and two Ministers out of the scenario, the majority of Welsh Conservative MPs are unhappy with the Bill.
This is an important Bill, but so far today we have seen most of these green Benches empty. Members who have spoken have done so with great passion and great commitment to Wales, but we have had a lot of green shown to us today and not many Members from throughout Great Britain and across the House joining us. That is very disappointing.
The Bill comes at a crucial time for our home nation. The Welsh economy is now chugging back into life after a protracted stall since 2008. Businesses are hiring again, the unemployment rate is falling, and our GDP is beginning to rise. The historic Cardiff city deal introduced by this Government that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) does so much to champion is bringing great infrastructure and further job prospects to south Wales. That will have a knock-on effect on many hon. Members’ constituencies, including my own, boosting our local economies.
This is also a crucial time for Wales because it is so soon after the Welsh Assembly elections that returned no overall majority. On its own, perhaps that result does not have a great knock-on effect on uncertainty in the Welsh economy, but coupling it with the EU referendum, whichever way the vote goes, makes for an uncertain time for Wales. It is imperative that we do all we can to make Wales strong and resilient for the future. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and I do not want Wales to be the weak link in the United Kingdom chain. I think that we can all agree on that, as we all want Wales to be a strong, successful player in the United Kingdom.
Some Members might be surprised to hear that I am not opposed to the overall concept of further devolution in trying to achieve that goal. I agree with the Government that power should be held as close to the people as possible, which is why I believe that some parts of previous Wales Acts need to be tidied up. I also agree that the Welsh Assembly needs to be more accountable to the people of Wales. We should stick to our manifesto pledge to deliver the Wales Bill that I and other Conservative Members were elected to deliver by the people of Wales.
That, however, is where my agreement with this Bill wanes. I cannot stand idly by my principles and accept the Bill in its current form. I am disappointed about the timing of the Bill, its application and much of its substance. I want a Wales that can decide its own destiny and has control over its future, but most of all I want a Wales that plays a key part in, and remains a strong part of, a United Kingdom. The only way we can achieve those goals is through a devolved settlement that the people of Wales actually want and accept—a settlement that will hold long into the future.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points based on his principles as a politician. Does that mean that he will vote against the Bill?

Chris Davies: I thank my parliamentary neighbour for his intervention. As far as I am aware, there will be no vote this evening, but I shall scrutinise the Bill exceptionally closely over the next two or three days and I will table amendments.
We as politicians should never assume that we know exactly what the people of Wales want. On matters as important as this settlement and the Bill, which will affect me, my children and my children’s children long into the future, we cannot afford to get it wrong. That is why the devolution settlement should, above all, have accountability and democracy at its very core and as its foundations. Without such strong pillars on which to build our settlement, we cannot expect our structure to hold. As we have seen recently in Scotland, we could come dangerously close to a total collapse if it is not right.
Does the Bill uphold what I suggest, with little dispute, to be the settlement that Wales wants and needs? First, I want to consider the timing of the Bill. Government Front Benchers will no doubt be aware that the Welsh Affairs Committee looked long and hard at the draft Wales Bill. Many hours over many months were dedicated to studying its detail, and I was very pleased to be part of that Committee and grateful for the time we were allocated.
Although it appears that we were given plenty of time to look at the particulars of the draft Bill, the Bill in front of us today includes important clauses that the Committee was not asked to consider. We spent hours scrutinising the draft Bill, not this Bill. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who used to work at the Wales Office, and to the current Secretary of State for Wales for the evidence and assistance they gave our Committee during our inquiry. However, we have had an about-turn on the need for a referendum on the devolution of tax-raising powers and the new commitment to allowing for the abolition of the Welsh Assembly through a referendum squeezing their way into the Bill, so it was disappointing that the Committee was not given the chance to look in depth at those issues, which underline the whole Bill and will have enormous consequences for the people of Wales. Many members of the Committee would, I am sure, have welcomed more time to look into those important changes to the constitution of Welsh devolution, but we have been denied that chance by the apparent rushed introduction of the Bill.
On the substance of the devolution settlement, it was while looking over the draft Bill that I felt the most sympathy for one of the Welsh Affairs Committee’s witnesses—I do not usually feel sympathy for him—namely Professor Richard Wyn Jones, who told us that
“to read this Bill, you have to have a copy of the 2006 Act, and a towel doused in cold water wrapped around your head, and you have to compare the two pieces of legislation. As a constitution for Wales, this isn’t user friendly.”
Nevertheless I, like many in this Chamber, persevered, and I have found many surprises. First, I was struck by proposed new section 92A(3) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, on the very first page of the Bill before us—I do not propose to go through each clause—which says:
“the Welsh Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales voting in a referendum.”
I was heartened because I believed that there would be true democracy in the Bill, with the people being given the chance to abolish the Assembly if they so wish. I was therefore very encouraged, only to find, when I turned the page, that there was no instruction in the Bill about how that referendum would be triggered—I found only the next clause. I had hoped that the foundations of accountability and democracy were to be upheld, but that seems to be missing. Why not state in the Bill that the referendum could be triggered by a petition of the people?
When I looked at the will of the people, as expressed in the recent Assembly elections, I found that the Abolish the Welsh Assembly party had achieved a decent share of the vote—4.5%, in fact—from a standing start. I have been approached by people saying they would have lent that party their vote if they had believed that it would have made those of us in Westminster sit up and listen. While I neither support nor dispute the aims of that party, it shows that there is an appetite for political engagement in Wales, so the Government should do what they can to support that. I was sorry not to see that reflected in the Bill, and I believe that the provision falls disappointingly short of providing the key democratic pillar on which the settlement should be built.
Secondly, I want to touch on the application of the devolved settlement. Last night, I sat up in bed with the Wales Bill by my side and a copy of our manifesto open at pages 70 and 71. I am sure that everybody in the Chamber will know what was on those pages, but I remind them that it was the section on Wales’s devolution settlement. With my highlighter, I was ready to mark out each commitment that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I stood on to gain election to the House. I went through each point: introducing a Wales Bill—check; implementing much of the Silk report—check; devolving control over the Assembly’s name—check; reserving police and justice matters—check; introducing a funding floor for the Welsh Government once it has called a referendum on tax-raising powers—ah! I was ready and waiting with my highlighter, my eyes scanning swiftly across the Bill and my hands turning the pages, eagerly waiting to find the commitment that I had mentioned so many times on the doorstep. Clause 13 went by, as did clauses 14 and 15, and then it hit me—clause 16. I checked our manifesto and checked the Bill again, and there it was in black and white: a commitment to give the Welsh Assembly tax-raising powers without a referendum. It was a further  disappointment to find that the pillar of democracy on which I believe our settlement should be built was missing from this Bill.
In his op-ed on the Bill on the day of its First Reading, the Secretary of State himself said:
“Welsh men and women want sensible legislation that reflects their priorities and allows them to live under laws of their own choosing.”
Why will the Welsh people not get to choose the legislation under which they want to live? Why is the Welsh people’s voice being silenced on this issue? Why are the Welsh people being denied a say? Might referendums really be going out of fashion? Surely the whole idea of devolution was to move power out of Whitehall and closer to the people when they wanted it. I fully agree with that. Many political pundits have said that Cardiff Bay is the most centralising Government in Europe, and my constituents quite often feel that Cardiff Bay is far more remote than Westminster. Why have powers been moved from one Government to another when our constituents are either missing out altogether or being doubly burdened?
Finally—I am sure you are glad that I am coming to a close, Madam Deputy Speaker—I must stress that I am not in principle against the devolution of further powers to any Assembly, mayor, local authority or Government, and I want to put that clearly on record. I have absolutely no problem with the devolution of powers. In fact, I often think of devolution as a good thing, where it works. My concern in this case is about the Welsh Assembly’s ability to take on the extra powers outlined in the Bill and to utilise them in a competent and constructive way, particularly at this time of no overall majority.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) spoke eloquently about the devolution of wind energy provision, and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), said that he was scaremongering. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the prospect of having more pylons in Brecon and Radnorshire is scaring my constituents and is a serious worry, but I believe the Welsh Assembly will take it lightly.
Let us take some further examples. The first is health. The Labour-run Welsh Assembly Government have so far presided over a fall in real-terms spending on the NHS in Wales. Waiting times are through the roof, and some people are reregistering in England just so that they can be seen by a doctor within a reasonable timeframe. Ambulance and A&E targets are constantly missed, and there has been no implementation of a cancer drugs fund to save lives.
The second example is education. Standards in our Welsh schools are slipping under the Welsh Assembly Government while those in England rise. Schools in my area are closing due to cuts in local government settlements by the Welsh Assembly and its outright rejection of the excellent academies programme that is being rolled out across England. That makes no sense at all to me.

Jonathan Edwards: The points that the hon. Gentleman raises are about Government decisions, as opposed to decisions on devolution.
The hon. Gentleman accused me of accusing the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) of  scaremongering. I did not say that, but perhaps he might be willing to inform us of how many projects in Powys have been above the 50 MW level.

Chris Davies: I think the question to ask is how many will be above that level if we have Welsh devolution on the matter.
My third and final example is agriculture. The Welsh Assembly is just not hearing the voices of those of us in rural areas. It has substantially cut the agricultural budget and taken the maximum support payment away from our farmers. Until a month ago, it did not even allow agriculture, the environment and rural affairs a full place around the Cabinet table. This is the same Assembly that spent nearly £50,000 on a wind turbine that generated £5-worth of energy before being switched off.

Hywel Williams: I am afraid I must insist that the hon. Gentleman says that it is the Government doing that, rather than the Assembly. It is the Labour Government who are taking those decisions, not the Assembly itself. It might be ruled by a Labour Government, but those decisions are not the fault of the Assembly as such.

Chris Davies: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I stated that earlier in my speech. However, there is collective responsibility down there, and it is the Assembly Government who are making those decisions.
This is the same Assembly that, when given the independent living fund by the Department for Work and Pensions, passed it on to local councils, but not before taking a so-called administration fee. That cost the adult social care budget for people in my local authority area of Powys £49,000.
Devolving further powers before the Welsh Assembly proves that it can utilise the powers that it already has is like hiring the same cowboy builder who has built a structurally unsafe house to come back and build the extension. It is unsound to make the assumption that piling more bricks on top of a wobbly Jenga tower will make it sturdier. It just does not make sense. Surely this is not the pillar of accountability.

Albert Owen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reading his party’s manifesto, which was a brave step. But seriously, we have just had an Assembly election, and his party went down from second to third. He says that he wants to bring power closer to the people, so is he arguing for more powers for local authorities? That would in some way devolve powers within Wales.

Chris Davies: As much as it saddens me, I actually quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. The record so far suggests that it would be better to have devolution to local authorities than to a centralised Government in Cardiff Bay.

Glyn Davies: To follow on from the point that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made, devolution to local government is fine. The British Government have devolved planning to local authorities, but the first thing the Welsh Government did was to take that power away from local authorities and centralise it to themselves. Planning powers are devolved to local authorities in England but centralised to Cardiff in Wales.

Chris Davies: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point. My theme is the centralisation of government in Cardiff Bay. That is not devolution to the people of Wales. Sadly, devolving further powers at this time, when that Government are not capable of handling the powers they have, is a bad way forward.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will just say in relation to the intervention by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) that the last time I went along to Torfaen’s planning committee it seemed to have some planning powers. To return to the point, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) is attacking the Welsh Labour Government. Will he show some respect to the people of Wales, who on five occasions have elected Labour as the largest party in the Assembly?

Chris Davies: The hon. Gentleman said the important thing, which was not said by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen): the people of Wales have elected the largest party, not a majority party. That party has achieved government by a coalition—is it a coalition; is it a merger? I am not quite sure what it is down there at the moment. They do not seem to know down there either, so is now the time to pass on more powers?
There we have it. I have asked only for a devolution settlement that allows Wales to decide its own destiny and future and to play its part in the United Kingdom, and that is built on the firmest foundations of accountability and democracy. Let us give Wales desired devolution, not disappointment, and a settlement, not a setback. Most of all, let us give real democracy to Wales.

Mark Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words, not least after that tour de force by my neighbour the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies). I assure him that there has been no merger; the Liberal voice might be somewhat muted these days, but it is still there.
If there was ever a case for a clear and understandable devolution settlement, some of what the hon. Gentleman said would be a basis for it—the need to distinguish between Government and Government decisions, and decisions made by the Assembly. That is what the debate is all about. So many of the issues he raised were of the domain of the political debate that was no doubt held in the villages and halls of Brecon and Radnorshire; I say to him with great respect that the people of Brecon and Radnorshire made a very clear statement a few weeks ago of what they wanted, and endorsed a party that has always been and remains committed to extending the case for home rule within a federal Britain.
I very much endorse what the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said about the history and journey of devolution being a tribute to many people and many political parties. It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that I think there were Liberal Democrat fingerprints—perhaps a little faded and jaded now—on the earliest stages of the current process, with the creation of the Silk commission. It produced two reports, one on fiscal responsibility and one endorsing the reserved powers model. I welcome that work, as well as the earlier work done by the previous Labour Government. It has begun to bear some fruit in this Bill.
Perhaps things went a little out of kilter, thereafter—this wave of nostalgia for the coalition had better end now. The St David’s day agreement followed, and we saw the introduction of the draft Wales Bill, which was subjected to extensive scrutiny by the Welsh Affairs Committee under the great stewardship of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). I will not dwell on the inadequacies of the draft Bill other than to say that our scrutiny was thorough and detailed. The overwhelming response—from civil society, from people of most political parties and from the Welsh Government—was that the draft Bill was at best inadequate and at worst had a stifling effect on the quest of many of us for meaningful, clear and transparent devolution. I repeat that my party has always believed in the idealism I think the hon. Member for Ynys Môn alluded to: home rule for Wales within an aspirant federal Britain.

Ian Lucas: It always amazes me that the Liberal Democrats—I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows—use the phrase “home rule” in this context, because home rule failed and led to Ireland leaving the United Kingdom. Does he not think it would be better to use a phrase that conjures up a vision of success within the United Kingdom, rather than failure?

Mark Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a historical interpretation. I use the phrase “home rule” in the context of the historic battles for, and crusade towards, self-government in Wales, evoking the memories of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) about marching with his banner, the Cymru Fydd and his references to the Welsh Parliamentary Party. I think the term resonates with people, if not the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas). I do not think we are arguing against each other; I think we probably aspire to the same objective. We are dancing on the head of the proverbial pin.
I do have one big concern. In the past few months, the previous Bill was kicked into the proverbial long grass or cul-de-sac. I commend the Secretary of State and his officials for their alacrity and speed—it took us all by surprise that we would be here today—in ensuring that the Bill is now before us, and I thank him and his officials for the opportunity to informally raise concerns and ask questions directly in the past few days. Notwithstanding that, there are aspects of the Bill that should not be rushed. There has been some concern expressed about that speed. It is fundamentally important that the new Bill is given sufficient opportunity to be properly scrutinised. I hope officials will be thorough in their consultation and discussions with civil society, political parties and the Welsh Government to ensure that we have a workable Bill which retains and builds on widespread support.
I was privileged to take part in the St David’s Day discussions. Looking around the House, I think I am the only other person here who was in the room having those discussions with the other representatives: the former Plaid Cymru leader, the right hon. Elfyn Llwyd, the former Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). I well remember the first meeting. I reminded the Secretary of State that I would be discussing our meetings with my colleagues in Cardiff Bay, and that our discussions—the four of us sitting in isolation around that familiar big table in the big office  in Gwydyr House—should not be seen in isolation. I have to say that I do not believe those discussions were as inclusive as they should have been. Cross-party and cross-parliamentary collaboration will be the key to the Bill succeeding as discussions proceed if the durable, permanent settlement we wish to see is secured.
Were the St David’s Day talks an attempt to move the agenda on? Yes they were, and indeed they have moved the agenda on. Inevitably, however, allowing a veto from any one of the four participants risked stopping discussions in their tracks. That was how it was. We went through every one of the Silk commission’s recommendations, item by item: hands up boys if you agree, hands down if you do not. If one person objected, the issue was not pursued. When people talk about the advancement of the debate by the lowest common denominator, they are correct: it was very, very easy to stop aspects of the Silk recommendations. I say that as someone whose party was one of the first—my friends in Plaid Cymru might have been there just before us—to endorse all that Silk said in his second report.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman spill the beans today and tell us who the biggest culprits were in raising their hands?

Mark Williams: The hon. Gentleman, who is my parliamentary neighbour, will not expect me to answer that question. I suspect his sources in Plaid Cymru have given him the answer to that question already. Despite the best intentions, the structure was going to fail from the outset.
Now, to the Bill. To start at the beginning, it is welcome although not surprising that clause 1 recognises the permanence of the National Assembly. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has told us that the detail of a referendum to abolish the Assembly is not there, and I am pleased about that, but it does establish the principle that the only way we could ever abolish the National Assembly would be through the consent of the Welsh people as expressed in a referendum.
The recent National Assembly elections were not—this will come as no surprise—a stunning success for my party, but they were even less stunning for the Abolish the Welsh Assembly party. Whatever our concerns, and perhaps with just one or two exceptions, there is a recognition that our Assembly is here to stay. Importantly, clause 1 provides for a new and specific recognition of Welsh law:
“There is a body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers.”
It is the first time that such recognition has existed, and it is of course welcome, but it must not end there. If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire were tempted to divide the House later and vote against the Government, the Government Front-Bench team can have some assurance that I would be likely to go through the Lobby with them— but with significant caveats and provisos. I do not know how much power solitary Liberal Democrats have these days—perhaps more than the hon. Gentleman thinks in an Assembly context. I will support the Bill at this point, but with the proviso that certain things must change.

Chris Davies: I am sure that the Secretary of the State and the Minister will be overjoyed to hear that the Liberal Democrats will join the Conservatives once   again—just like in the previous five years. It was remiss of me not to congratulate my parliamentary neighbour on becoming the new leader of the Welsh Liberals and the last man standing—or last person standing, I should say—in the Welsh Liberal party. Was I hearing Liberal-speak when the hon. Gentleman said he was glad to have a provision for devolving the Welsh Assembly, but not to have a mechanism included? Surely the Liberals would nowadays want to give people the democratic rights that they should have.

Mark Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Reference is made to it in the Bill, which should satisfy the hon. Gentleman. We look forward, as I am sure the people of Brecon and Radnorshire do, to seeing the detail in the lengthy schedule that the hon. Gentleman will table to allow the abolition. He might be helping the 4.5% of people who voted for the Abolish the Welsh Assembly party in their cause, although I am not sure it will help his cause if he proceeds along that route. There we are; we will see.
I was talking about the issue of distinct jurisdictions. There is, I think, a concern—the Secretary of State might have gone partly down the road to addressing it—about the Bill’s reference to a distinct Welsh legal jurisdiction. It seems pointless to refer to a body of law without addressing the issue of jurisdiction. With the growing body of Welsh-specific law that will emerge, this seems necessary if the Bill is to provide a proper and long-term settlement.
In common with the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and others, I do not want to be back here, if I am lucky enough still to be here in five, 10 or however many years, to encounter what would be the fifth Wales Bill. I predict that this issue will not go away, and the Secretary of State should be mindful of it. He is partly mindful of it through the creation of the working group, for which I am grateful. Even if Conservative Back Benchers will be grinding their teeth at the thought of any changes to the judicial system, I think there needs to be greater acknowledgement of the fact that this issue will not go away.
Let me move on to clause 10 and the necessity test, which was an issue of real concern, as many Members on the Opposition side have confirmed. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee was concerned about it, and I believe the concerns were legitimate that this could be used to curb the powers of the National Assembly. Whether it be true or false, that was the perception. I am glad to see movement on that issue, and although the necessity test remains in part—it will be justified for cross-border and reserved matters—I am glad about the extent to which it has gone. That test seems to have been replaced—I use that word cautiously—by the justice impact assessment undertaken by the Welsh Government. In the spirit of devolution, the Bill says that that was done in the “way they see fit”, and presented with accompanying legislation. I note, however, that the Welsh Government have stated that the Assembly already has the potential to deal with that issue through their Standing Orders.
Quite where that assessment goes, I am unsure; and quite what the response from Westminster Ministers and officials from the Ministry of Justice to it will be, I am also unsure. What would it take for the intervention powers of a Secretary of State to be enacted? I am not  sure. What would set in train the mechanism to go to the Supreme Court—something we want to avoid? I am not sure. I wrote this speech before I heard the opening remarks from the Secretary of State, who reassured us that this measure will not go anywhere, but that prompts the question as to why we need it, if the National Assembly can pursue that device through its Standing Orders. I seek reassurance from the Minister that there is nothing sinister that devolutionists like me and others on the Opposition Benches—and, to be fair, on the Government Benches—should be concerned about.
Is there any need for this provision, given that according to the First Minister the Assembly has the capacity to introduce its own impact assessment? I welcome the fact that there will be a joint Justice in Wales working group to consider that and other judicial matters, and to establish the protocol on judicial arrangements. The group’s objective is:
“To provide clear and efficient administrative arrangements for justice in Wales that fully reflect the distinctiveness of Wales—
I am surprised that the Wales Office allowed that word in the group’s remit, because we are all against distinctiveness or separation, but it is an encouraging sign—
“and the distinct body of Welsh law within the England and Wales justice system.”
I look forward to that report. I do not know what form it will be in, or whether there will be opportunities as work proceeds for people to come to the House or report to the Secretary of State who will answer our questions. However, it is worrying that this Chamber will not consider the outcome of that work before the Bill goes to the other place. People may say that I cannot have it both ways—I cannot have the working group as well as the Bill coming speedily before the House—but I am reflecting on the quality of debate that we will have on such matters, if the body of expertise and officials are meeting and reaching conclusions, and we do not have the opportunity to respond to them as we proceed.
Recommendation 28 of Paul Silk’s report states that he believes we should hold a review within 10 years of devolving legislative responsibility for the Courts Service, sentencing, legal aid, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary to the National Assembly. Let the remit of the working group be as broad as possible, and perhaps I will be reassured that it will consider those matters. If that is the case, the Secretary of State will have trumped—dare I use that word?—Paul Silk on timescales, which is to be welcomed.
The bulk of the Bill relates to schedule 2 and the detail of reserved matters. The Western Mail says one thing, and David Melding in the Welsh Assembly tells us that we are down from 250 to 200 reservations, which is a move in the right direction. We may have had the bonfire of the quangos, but that is not quite the bonfire of reservations that some of us had hoped for. A reserved powers model will inevitably involve a list, and we are told that 15 to 20 reservations have been taken out of the Bill—I do not know where those numbers are coming from—and that three more have been added. My elementary maths tells me that that is a positive of up to 17 reservations in our direction, but interestingly, the three added reservations concern the second Severn  crossing, prostitution, and heating and cooling systems. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to the rationale behind those three things.
I would also be interested to hear more about how the process was undertaken by the Wales Office, and the extent of the consultation when deciding on those reservations. The Select Committee made clear recommendations. It said that the Wales Office should go back and start the list again. Did that happen? I rather doubt it, given the time that elapsed between the publication of our report and the inception of the Bill.
We are where we are, and the Bill does represent a significant move forward. I would not be so churlish as to suggest that the last year has wasted the opportunities provided by the work of Paul Silk and the limitations of the St David’s Day agreement, because much has been learned on the back of the unfortunate draft legislation that followed. At the very least, it has taught the Government, and many in the House, that devolution is an important issue that will not go away, and that if we are to achieve a lasting settlement, the Government must do better: they must consult widely, and they must respond. They have done that to a degree, and I am therefore prepared to give the Bill cautious support at this stage. However, I do so on the understanding that the work of the working group is not peripheral but important, and that it will enhance our democratic processes rather than inhibiting them.
According to a press release issued by the Wales Office last week:
“The Wales Bill is in the finest traditions of Welsh radical reformers like Lloyd George.”
Neither I nor, I suspect, anyone in the Wales Office has had the benefit of Lloyd George’s wisdom on the Bill, literally or spiritually. The nearest that I got to Lloyd George was having tea with one of his daughters, a prominent lady in the constituency of the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). However, notwithstanding what the Minister has said about the need for cross-party consensus—and I wish him well in that regard—I suspect that my party’s agenda is rather more in tune with the thinking of David Lloyd George than the Government’s is.

Glyn Davies: It is a pleasure to follow my friend and neighbour the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who, as always—but he is not even listening to me as I congratulate him on the quality of his speech! It is also a pleasure to have been in the Chamber for most of the debate, and to have heard some fairly strong opinions delivered in such a reasonable way. It has been a constructive debate, and it has been pretty enjoyable.
I was pleased to see a Wales Bill in the Gracious Speech, although I believe that every Queen’s Speech since I have been a Member of Parliament has contained a Wales Bill. I think it was the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) who said earlier that we did not have many opportunities to look at the constitution of Wales and change it, but it seems to me that we have such an opportunity pretty well every year. I do not know whether we shall have one next year; that will depend on the success of the Secretary of State.
There has been a fair degree of agreement across the House today. I have sensed that everyone wants to support the Bill, although many Members will clearly  want to see some changes to it. I, too, was surprised by the speed at which Second Reading arrived. It is fairly obvious to me that the Secretary of State is a man of action and a man in a hurry, given that it was only a few days ago that we first knew that there was to be a Wales Bill.
The Secretary of State told us at the beginning of the debate that his two objectives were clarity and accountability, and those objectives will form the two most significant parts of the speech that I intend to make. The Secretary of State also said that he hoped that we would be able to end the squabbling between the Welsh and United Kingdom Governments for good, and that we would have a permanent settlement. I wish him the best of luck with that, because I should be surprised if we Welsh managed to stop squabbling.
Clarity is a key aim of the Bill. Like the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who spoke earlier, I was opposed to devolution in 1997. Indeed, I campaigned against it, and voted against it on 18 September. However, I was on the losing side. The National Assembly for Wales was set up, and I became a Member of it for eight years.
One reason why I opposed it was the obvious lack of certainty and clarity on how the devolution process would develop. It did not seem to me as if it was stable or could last. The leader of the Conservative party in Wales at that time, who was opposed to devolution, did not think that there was any certainty to the process, and a leading Labour party member described the process as being a magical mystery tour with no obvious end. My hon. Friend suggested that the end might be like Alton Towers. The truth is that we do not know, and I am still not convinced, even with this Bill, that we can ever actually reach the end, because in terms of constitutional settlements, there will always be debate and change. One day sometime in the future there may be a Wales Bill that reduces the amount of power that goes to the Assembly. Who knows?
I became Chair of the legislation Committee in the National Assembly quite early on, and partly through my experience of that I became convinced that we needed to have a reserved powers model, rather than the conferred powers model: that all power should be devolved unless there was a very good reason why it should not be. That has informed my attitude to devolution ever since. If something can reasonably and sensibly be devolved, I think it should be, and I think the move to a devolved model delivers that. It is a much more permanent settlement and is much less likely to lead to visits to the Supreme Court for arguments to be heard. I greatly support that, therefore. It is one of the two fundamental drivers behind the Bill, and one of the two issues that make me very keen to see it go through.
The second one, however, is more controversial: accountability, and in particular financial accountability. I know that there is some disagreement, certainly on the Conservative Benches, on this issue, but I became convinced many years ago that responsibility for a significant level of income tax was crucial if the Welsh Assembly was to become an accountable body that engaged with the people of Wales at election time. People could look at both sides of the ledger—how money was raised as well as how it was spent. When I first took that view and espoused it publicly, there were not many people in my  party who agreed with me, but it has been consistently and solidly my opinion ever since, and it is as strong today as it has ever been.
On a number of occasions at the last election I was asked about my position on this. I said very clearly that my view was that we should devolve a significant proportion of income tax—probably the ability to levy up to 50% of income tax—and until that power was devolved, I could not see how the Welsh Assembly could be seen as a Parliament.
Part of this Bill is about giving the Welsh Assembly the name “Parliament”, but how can we have a Parliament that does not have the ability to levy the most important tax that people understand? Without that, it cannot properly be described as a Parliament; there have to be powers over income tax.
Members have referred to the £2.5 billion that is already devolved to the National Assembly, but it is income tax that engages people. When voters in an Assembly election are looking at what parties to support, income tax is what engages them. They consider not just the parties’ spending promises, but how they are going to raise that money. It is crucial that we go down that road.
Apologies to Labour Members, but it is a weakness to assume that the Welsh Government will always be a Labour Government. There will not always be a Labour Government in Cardiff. It is not the Welsh Assembly that passes the laws; it is the Labour Government who do so. If we can properly engage with people at election time—financial accountability is a key part of this—we might be able to have something other than a Labour Government. We might be able to have a genuine view among the Welsh people and the possibility of a Conservative Government in Wales.
There will be debates on many other parts of the Bill as well, and we have already talked about a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales. There is no doubt that a body of Welsh law is developing. It is a small body at the moment, but it will grow. It will be a long time, however, before it becomes a significant body of law and I do not feel that it is justifiable to have a separate legal jurisdiction to deal with the limited amount of Welsh laws that we have. I cannot justify having a separate jurisdiction from the current England and Wales jurisdiction.
There has also been quite a lot of debate about the justice impact assessments. We removed the necessity test, which was pretty important. Almost everybody thought that that was the right thing to do. However, it seems unreasonable that there should be no mechanism within an institution to assess the impact of the laws it passes on any other institution. All this means is that when the Welsh Government pass legislation, they will have to assess the impact of that legislation on other legislation. That seems entirely reasonable, and I suspect that every other legislative body in the world does it, so I really cannot see why this should be an issue.
Policing has also been an issue. Perhaps this is just my view, but I have never been opposed in principle to the devolution of policing. However, we cannot support the devolution of policing to Wales until a very strong case can be made that it would improve policing there. We need to know how it would be improved and whether the new arrangement would work well for England and Wales.

Jonathan Edwards: Had the hon. Gentleman been here during last night’s debate, he would know that I support the devolution of policing because of what has happened to the police helicopter service in Dyfed-Powys. It has been lost because policing is a reserved power. The helicopter services were not lost in Scotland or Northern Ireland, but the service has been lost in Dyfed-Powys because policing is reserved, and we now have a pooled service that is letting my communities down and letting his communities down.

Simon Hart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Glyn Davies: Are you intervening on me or on the hon. Gentleman? Go on!

Simon Hart: I thought it might be helpful, before my hon. Friend replied to the Plaid Cymru intervention, to take careful note of the fact that the Dyfed-Powys police helicopter has not been lost, and that it would be a gross misrepresentation of the truth to claim that it has been.

Glyn Davies: I thank my hon. Friend; that is exactly what I was going to say.
I also want to touch on the question of devolution in regard to energy. We all pay a price when we support a Bill that is as comprehensive as this one, because there are often parts of the Bill with which we are very uncomfortable, and I have to say that devolving power over wind farms up to 350 MW to the Welsh Government really sticks in my craw. For me, that is a high price to pay to support the Bill. Perhaps I did not make what I meant absolutely clear in an earlier intervention, but we know that the Welsh Labour Government—perhaps supported by some of the other parties—are hugely enthusiastic about covering mid-Wales with wind turbines, wind farms and pylons. There has been a huge battle to try to stop them, but the Welsh Government are very keen to do it.
On 1 March this year—St David’s day—the United Kingdom Government passed powers over onshore wind to local government across England and Wales. In England, local government now has the power to make decisions on wind farms of any size, and that power has also been devolved to Wales. On that same day, the Welsh Government took that power unto themselves. In Wales, everything over 25 MW is therefore now decided by the Welsh Government in Cardiff, but in England local authorities decide this. That is one reason why I find this part of the Bill to be extremely difficult to support.
I am looking forward to the Committee stage, where we will debate a series of aspects of the Bill, as we are not able to touch on everything today. The Bill is really worth while. We can perhaps change one or two parts of it, but it is a good Bill that will bring more stability, more security and more democracy, in the sense that through financial accountability people will be more engaged with the democratic process than has ever been the case in Wales before. That is why I very much hope that the Bill makes its way through the House.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Am fod yn bowld, fe gymeraf y cyfle i ddweud rhyw frawddeg arall   yn Gymraeg. If I was braver, I would probably carry on, but it did seem appropriate to get more than the usual introduction and salutation in Welsh in today on the Floor of the House.
As a relatively new MP, one of the 2015 generation, it seems to me that successive Secretaries of State for Wales are fond of bigging up Wales Bills as “generational milestones”. These landmarks of legislation are intended to stand as rocks of ages, directing the flow of governance with their permanence. I am a new MP, yet already I have seen Wales Bills come and Wales Bills go. Although I am impassioned with the will to empower Wales, I fear that the House must be concerned that this Bill, yet again, is a cypher for the ongoing tussle between Westminster Departments desperate to protect their little empires and the National Assembly for Wales—not the Welsh Government—seeking the tools to do its job.
For a second time, the laudable concept of reserved powers, which was so well explained by my neighbour the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies)—the hon. Member for Trefaldwyn—is in a reality little more than a series of glosses scribbled over the Government of Wales Act 2006: a cross-referencing exercise for lawyers and academics, shuffling backwards and forwards among documents. The people of Wales deserve clarity and permanence, whereas this remains an exercise in safeguarding the status quo and legislative sacred cows. The Government make much of lessons learnt from the draft Bill: the necessity tests have almost disappeared; ministerial consents no longer apply to so-called “Wales public bodies”, but they remain none the less; and the previous 267 reservations have been whittled down to 250. This is hardly evidence of a change of heart, although I particularly welcome the devolution of powers of heritage railways, having six in my constituency—very lovely they are, too, and I recommend a visit to any of them.
The Government have still got us jumping through hoops to maintain the fiction of a unified legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, when the very existence of the legislature at the Senedd, the growing body of Welsh legislation and the vast majority voice of civil and professional opinion together, in consensus, prove otherwise. Perhaps talk of distinct legal jurisdiction is the domain of political obsessives—we have heard this already this afternoon—but it is the very fabric of the infrastructure of government. It is boring, in the same way that the infrastructure of a country is boring, and roads and railways are boring—unless we have to travel to get somewhere and be there on time.
Wales is on a journey. Each new piece of constitutional legislation promises to deliver us at our destination, but the road ahead is not yet clear. We have had 17 years of learning to walk, but why are we still to be hobbled when we want to run? The present England and Wales single legal jurisdiction is past its sell-by-date; it yokes together two diverging legal landscapes. Acknowledging this reality will remove the problem. Attempting to tie them together with legal shackles only underlines how much this is really about asserting London’s sovereignty over Wales—the last of the home colonies—and how little it is about mutual respect and support among equals.
What we have allegedly gained in the vaunted listening exercise between this Bill and the draft Bill runs the risk of being little more than a sleight of hand and a change  of name. Out go necessity tests and in come justice impact assessments and a diktat to Assembly Standing Orders, which impose—as compulsory—something that Westminster treats as optional in its own affairs.
We are told that the protocol for dealing with disputes as a result of these assessments will be determined by the Justice in Wales working group—I am glad to learn of that working group, as it reflects the concern that some of us on the Welsh Affairs Committee had with the draft Wales Bill and that we raised in our report. None the less, it does concern me that there is no mention of these justice impact assessments in the working group’s remit. Indeed, there are concerns all round.

Alun Cairns: Does the hon. Lady accept that a justice impact assessment is a sensible thing for any mature legislature to have in relation to the scrutiny of legislation? If she does, what is her objection or question when I say that it is merely a statement of fact that helps with the scrutiny of a Bill, as we have not had justice impact assessments up until now?

Liz Saville-Roberts: I note first of all that the impact assessments are compulsory in that they would be compulsory in their effect. However, for this Bill, they are not compulsory, but optional. We do not know for sure what results they could trigger. It interests me that they are not in the working group remit, but that they appear in the Bill. We should explore more fully what their impact is likely to be. Yes, on face value, they are to be welcomed, but we need to know more about them. We need to know the mechanism by which we will know more about them, and we need to be sure that that will feed in to the process of this Bill.
Indeed, there are concerns all round about the pace of the Bill’s introduction, the need for scrutiny on its workability and how it synchronises with the timetable of the justice working group, which reports in the autumn. I anticipate that the Secretary of State will outline how these material issues co-ordinate, but I am disappointed that we are being asked to vote today on matters about which so many questions remain unanswered.
In passing, I also note further concerns about the working group. I seek a guarantee that the interests of Westminster departmental workings will be secondary to the best interests of Wales with regard to membership, remit and stakeholder evidence. To reiterate, I ask the Secretary of State to assure me that this Bill will not reach its Committee stage until the working group has reported. It would be unacceptable to move ahead in the present state of uncertainty.
I recall that, in discussions on the draft Bill, the sheer unworkability of the foundation principles meant that the reservations themselves did not receive proper attention. That must not happen again. We have had many speeches about the potential of Wales—I applaud the speech of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) who is no longer in his place—and how the Wales Bill should be looking to realise the fantastic future for Wales. We should be optimistic in our anticipations.
In fact, rather than giving the people of Wales more control over their own resources, some aspects of the Bill give the UK Government a greater hold. Section 44 amends section 114 of the Government of Wales Act 2006—a section that gives the UK Government a veto on any Welsh legislation or measure that has an  adverse impact on water quality or supply in England. Incidentally, that section is exclusive to the Welsh devolution settlement. It appears in neither the Scottish nor the Northern Ireland settlements. Rather than removing this section from the Bill, bringing Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, section 44 extends the veto to cover anything that has an adverse impact on sewerage systems in England, too—so we have water and now we have sewerage.
In last October’s debate on the flooding of Capel Celyn, I recall the Secretary of State referring to the joint Government review programme and how it was considering the Silk commission’s recommendation on water. I understand that this group is to report shortly. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be minded to amend the Bill to include a reciprocal power for the Welsh Government to veto UK Government measures that impact on Wales, or perhaps he will see sense and remove section 44 from the Bill. That will, at long last, right the wrong of Capel Celyn and give Wales full powers over our own water.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) as another member of the 2015 generation.
I welcome the Wales Bill in its new form, which is a significant improvement on its first incarnation last October. There is still work to do, but I am reassured that the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will continue to have constructive discussions on the Bill with the Welsh Government, and there is still scope to amend the Bill during its passage through the House. I welcome the additional powers on elections, energy, transport and marine licensing. The Bill represents a further stage on the devolution journey that began under a Labour Government in 1999.
In the Welsh Grand Committee on 3 February, I highlighted three concerns about the Bill regarding ministerial consents, reservations and the necessity tests. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, the then Secretary of State said:
“There is nothing in the draft Bill that makes the Welsh Assembly consider whether legislating in a devolved area is necessary.”—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 3 February 2016; c. 61.]
I am pleased that there has been a rapid move from denial to acceptance, and that changes have been made in that regard.
The necessity tests have not been scrapped completely, and they remain in the Bill, admittedly in a watered-down form, in clause 3 and new schedule 7B. They apply, first, if Welsh legislation touches on reserved matters and, secondly, if there is an effect beyond Wales. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State made it clear that there may be scope to remove that altogether, and that may be something that the Secretary of State will consider during the passage of the Bill. Simpler ministerial consents are welcome. It is entirely right that the Welsh Government have the power to remove or modify UK ministerial powers in devolved areas without consent, and the shortened list of reservations is welcome too.
I spent some time teaching politics before entering the House, and, I remember many debates 10 to 12 years  ago about pre-legislative scrutiny. Such scrutiny has been helpful for the Bill, and I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in the Assembly, as well as to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, particularly for the speech that she made in the Welsh Grand Committee in February.
I want to deal with the issue of jurisdiction. I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and declare that I am a non-practising barrister, following my door tenancy at Civitas Law in Cardiff. There is an emerging body of Welsh law, which is a reality, and it will grow in years to come as a consequence of the primary powers devolved in the 2011 referendum. I am pleased that that has been explicitly recognised in the Bill, and I welcome the working group to which the Secretary of State has referred. As I understand it, the group can take in representatives from the Wales Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Welsh Government and, indeed, the Lord Chief Justice, all of whom should be able to contribute.
The power to modify criminal and private law on matters in the competence of the Assembly is welcome too, along with clause 10 and judicial impact assessments. However, a steer on a distinct jurisdiction would be extremely useful, and was proposed by the Welsh Government in supplementary pre-legislative scrutiny evidence. That would assist in the longer term—we all want a lasting settlement, not one that is revisited. I do not, however, think that a separate legal jurisdiction is the answer to the problem. I approach this from the perspective of access to justice. I have been critical of the Government in other contexts and their record on access to justice, but that issue has to be borne in mind in the Bill.
At present, if someone wishes to take a legal action on something outside the jurisdiction, within the civil procedure rules—sadly, I can remember these things; this is covered in part 6—a number of requirements have to be met in order to do so. I do not want a constituent from Torfaen, who goes, for example, to Bristol, falls over or has an accident, and then wants justice in that matter to find that there are barriers in the way of securing that. As the working group goes forward, it must look at the access to justice issue and ensure that we have a pragmatic way forward—the kind of vision of devolution set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)—so that individual access to justice is at the heart of the matter. It would also be useful to have far fewer clashes in the Supreme Court. I hope that as we proceed, the Bill will be able to achieve that.
On the devolution of income tax, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the shadow Secretary of State: it must be on the basis of no detriment to the current funding settlement for the Welsh Government.
My vision of the Bill is the vision of one of my hon. Friend’s predecessors as Member of Parliament for Llanelli, James Griffiths, whom I regard as one of the most underrated politicians of the previous century, particularly for his work as Minister for National Insurance after the second world war. He was the very first Secretary of State for Wales, appointed by a Labour Prime Minister,  Harold Wilson, in 1964, and his vision was of strong devolution for Wales within a strong United Kingdom. That is precisely the vision that I have today, and I sincerely hope that we can achieve that by building on the Bill and passing it.

Jonathan Edwards: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). I do not always agree with everything he says, but what he says, he says with substance, and is well thought out. I enjoyed his reference to James Griffiths, who is a proud son of Ammanford, which is my home town as well, so I will make sure that the South Wales Guardian reports his comments.
At the start of my contribution, I would like to raise an issue relating to the programme motion, which will be taken after these proceedings. There will be no debate on the programme motion, but when the Under-Secretary makes his winding-up speech, will he clarify the time allocated for the Bill’s Committee stage? In our view, two days will not be enough—the Scotland Bill had four days’ deliberation—but if the Under-Secretary is able to give guarantees that that time will be protected, we will be willing to concede on that. Will he also give an outline of the likely timetable for the Bill as it proceeds through its various stages?
We have heard some fantastic contributions to the debate from Members on both sides of the House. I particularly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), in which he made a passionate case for the full devolution of corporation tax. I fear that my comments will be tame in comparison. I made similar comments in the Western Mail on Saturday while I was out in Bordeaux, only to be accused by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales of nationalist dogma. The hon. Member for Islwyn, who is not in the Chamber, might be in trouble with the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) after this debate.
After less than two decades of devolution in Wales, we have had to change the settlement four times—this Bill will be the fifth time. Every one of those changes was meant to settle the constitutional question for a generation, yet here we are, debating another Bill that, it is claimed, will settle the constitution for our lifetime. I fear that we yet again have another tinkering Bill which will be past its sell-by date before the ink dries. During the course of the previous Bill, Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, endeavoured to strengthen it, as we will do during the course of this Bill. I am glad to see that some of our amendments, which were ruthlessly voted down last time, are reflected in provisions in this Bill, specifically the parts that allow the National Assembly to determine its own electoral system and give the National Assembly the right to change its name if it chooses. Surely since the last Assembly election, when one party had 50% of the seats on 30% of the vote, every true democrat must realise that we have to do something about the electoral system for the National Assembly.
On the question of the name, as far as I am concerned, now that the National Assembly can pass laws, it is a Parliament in its own right. However, I accept the arguments of some of my colleagues back home in the motherland that law-making bodies in Europe are known as assemblies, such as the Assemblée nationale in France.
I particularly welcome the Chancellor’s decision in the autumn statement to remove the need for a further referendum before the proposed income tax-setting arrangement is implemented. Referendums should be held only on a fundamental point of principle, as with next week’s vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union. Conversely, the 2011 Welsh referendum on a very opaque matter indicates the problems associated with holding a public vote on technical issues.
The principle of fiscal devolution from Westminster to Wales has already been conceded in the 2014 Act, with the devolution of minor taxes, stamp duty land tax, the aggregates levy and landfill tax. Devolution of power is the settled will of the people of Wales, as is highlighted by a long list of opinion polls. Political parties just need to get on with it now and to react to the growing demand for more powers for Wales, as opposed to hiding behind referendums. The only future referendum that should be held on the constitutional question in Wales is the referendum on Welsh independence, when the time comes.
The Bill is a step forward from the draft Bill, which was published last year by the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). That Bill included roll-back powers, which would have been completely unacceptable to Plaid Cymru, because they undermined the settlement overwhelmingly endorsed in the 2011 referendum.
Three new reservations have been added, including the Severn crossings. We will be pushing an amendment to repatriate the bridges during the Bill’s later stages and look forward to the support of Labour and Conservative Members. It is allegedly Labour Government policy in Wales that the bridges should come under the control of the Welsh Government. It is also the policy of the Conservatives in the National Assembly. In 2013, their transport spokesman said:
“Devolution of the crossings—and future use of the tolls—has the real potential to help hard-pressed motorists, provide significant investment in Welsh infrastructure and encourage economic growth”.
The hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies), who uttered those words while in the Assembly, was singing from my hymn sheet, and I am disappointed that he is not in the Chamber.

Guto Bebb: Which of the three ends of the Severn bridges that are in England does the hon. Gentleman feel are subject to a right to be repatriated to Wales? After all, there is a geographical reality that should be recognised.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for that point, which is always used by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies)—I am glad to see him in the Chamber, as we have debated this issue many times. However, the reality is that the Severn bridges are the two main supply links into the south Wales economy, so it is clearly in the interests of the Welsh Government to have control over them.
I always endeavour to be helpful in my politics, and when I look at the rate of constitutional change in the UK, it appears that the only way the British state can possibly survive is as a confederal arrangement between its constituent parts. The only reserved matters in that scenario should be those relating to currency, the Head  of State, defence, welfare and foreign affairs, although the boat on welfare may have started sailing with the Scotland Act.
The necessity tests have been replaced by so-called justice impact assessments. In response to the Bill, my former academic master, Richard Wyn Jones, from the Welsh Governance Centre, said in the Western Mail:
“I’m afraid this unexpected addition to the Bill suggests the mindset that devised the necessity test is still alive and kicking in Whitehall.”
He went on to say:
“It clearly undermines the UK Government’s claim to respect the National Assembly as a mature democratic institution able to make its own laws without interference.”
He concluded by saying:
“Ultimately the Secretary of State would be able to override a piece of legislation passed by the democratically elected Assembly. It is a mindset which sees the Assembly as a second-class legislature. There is no similar provision at the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish Parliament.”

Alun Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Edwards: I will refer to the Secretary of State’s earlier points and let him intervene following that.
Professor Jones makes the further valid point that these impact assessments are not reciprocal, citing the example of the super-prison in Wrexham, where the UK Government took no account of the impact on devolved Welsh public services such as health, social services, education, lifelong learning and skills.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments during the debate and the guarantee that the justice impact assessments cannot trigger a UK veto—I accept him at his word. However, we will have to take our own legal advice to ensure that these assessments are not a Trojan horse to stymie the ability of the National Assembly to function fully as a legislative body.

Alun Cairns: Let me politely reassure the hon. Gentleman that the justice impact assessments are in absolutely no way considered to be a veto. He referred to the prison in Wrexham—HMP Berwyn. When two mature institutions come to agreements, and one is seeking to encroach on devolved areas or another to encroach on an area that is non-devolved within the UK, the UK Government needs a legislative consent motion to take action in Wales. There is a mature arrangement. We need to come to a position where we understand each other, and these mature discussions should take place, rather than one having a right over the other. That is not the area that I want to get to.

Jonathan Edwards: I am extremely grateful for that intervention by the Secretary of State. His point about the Wrexham super-prison makes our argument for us. That facility has not been created to deal with the custodial needs and requirements of our country. That is partly why we will aim to remove the reservation on policing and prison services during the passage of the Bill.
My other major concern, as my party’s Treasury spokesperson, is the second-class settlement we are being offered in relation to fiscal powers. The Scotland Act 2016, which all Labour and Tory MPs based in  Wales voted for, fully devolved air passenger duty and income tax—including, crucially, the tax bands and half of VAT receipts—to Scotland. The Scottish Government will now be responsible for raising over the half the money they use in all devolved expenditure. Yet, as the recent Cardiff University assessment, “Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales 2016”, notes, following the fiscal plans in this Bill, the Welsh Government will be responsible for raising only about 20% of the devolved expenditure for which they are responsible.
If the twin arguments for fiscal devolution are accountability and incentivisation, surely we need more ambition for Wales than what is currently on offer. After all, in essence, we are talking about keeping more tax revenues raised in Wales directly in Wales, as opposed to collecting them in London and sending them back. The Welsh Government should be responsible for raising the money that they spend. That is a very valuable principle in politics. We will seek to amend this Bill and the forthcoming Finance Bill to secure parity for Wales with Scotland, and challenge Labour and Conservative Members who supported these powers for Scotland on why they oppose them for Wales.
The other issue in relation to tax powers that must be addressed if the measure is to receive our support is the fiscal framework to accompany tax devolution. As we have seen with the debate surrounding the Barnett formula, words such as “fairness” and “non-detriment” are extremely opaque and open to interpretation. The Bill will put in place a Barnett floor to stop further funding convergence, but let us be clear that that is not the same as “fair”. A fair settlement would surely, at the very least, peg Welsh funding at the Scottish level, especially since that is what Labour and Tory Members of Parliament from Wales voted for for Scotland. I will let them explain to the people of Wales why they think that Wales deserves less support through public funding per head than Scotland.
Returning to the fiscal framework, I am glad that there seems to be genuine good will around a non-detriment principle, but that will need to be clearly outlined before we finally vote on the Bill. I would expect the Treasury, at the very least, to publish its recommendations in an official statement to the House during our proceedings on the Bill because Members of Parliament will otherwise be voting blind on the consequences of the tax proposals. I say this as a strong supporter of devolving job-creating levers to Wales, as I outlined earlier. However, neither I nor my colleagues will support the Bill if the UK Government intend to push a straightforward indexed deduction method. I note the significant concessions gained by the SNP Scottish Government on this issue, so I would hope that the Labour Government in Wales and the Wales Office here will be pushing hard for a suitable deduction method for Wales.
This vital issue is even more complicated than my favourite topic of Barnett consequentials, so we must get it right. We need a formula that will reflect the fact that the population of Wales, and hence our tax base, will grow more slowly than the UK average. We cannot be left in a position whereby a successful fiscal policy in Wales leaves us standing still in terms of Welsh revenues. Incentivisation can work only if the Welsh Exchequer is not at a loss before the process starts. Scotland has once  again achieved a fair settlement, and so must Wales. It would be far easier to come up with a fair framework if we were debating full income tax powers similar to those awarded to Scotland—that is, full devolution of the bands and thresholds.
If the other main aim of fiscal devolution is to increase the political accountability of the Welsh Government, the sharing arrangement envisaged for income tax would continue to allow them to pass the buck. The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), said that full devolution of income tax powers under the Scotland Act would stop the Scottish Government playing the politics of grievance. If Wales has a sharing arrangement, the politics of grievance will continue. In the interests of accountability, incentivisation and, critically, transparency, the UK Government need to revise their plans and fully devolve income tax powers to Wales.
This March, in an act of blatant electioneering, the previous Welsh Labour Government published an alternative Wales Bill that called for a separate legal system for Wales and the devolution of policing. I look forward to the Labour Opposition here tabling such amendments to the Bill. If they do, I will support them with vigour, but if they do not, Plaid Cymru will do so and the people of Wales will be able to judge for themselves whether the First Minister has any influence over his bosses here in Westminster.
In conclusion, I would like to highlight the policy areas devolved to Scotland that are not included in this Bill, which include legal jurisdiction, policing, prisons, probation, criminal justice, full income tax, VAT sharing arrangements, air passenger duty, welfare and employment, consumer advocacy and advice, gaming mechanisms, full energy powers and rail franchising of passenger services, to name but a few. As I have said before, it will be up to our political opponents to explain why they voted for those powers for Scotland, but are opposed to them for Wales.
That brings me to the forthcoming parliamentary boundary review, which has not been mentioned at all during the debate, but will reduce Welsh representation in this place to 29 Members. That means a loss of more than a quarter of Welsh seats in the House of Commons.

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman has drawn up a long wish list of things that he wants to be properly devolved. What is the difference between that list and independence?

Jonathan Edwards: I am extremely surprised by that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman voted for those powers for Scotland. Is he now saying that he voted for Scottish independence? That is incredible.

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman and I are good friends. He is a fine cricketer, but he is also a naughty boy. Will he just answer the question?

Jonathan Edwards: I will take that intervention in the spirit in which it was intended. Those powers now reside in the Scottish Parliament, so is the hon. Gentleman saying that Scotland is independent? That is ridiculous. I am sure that the good people of Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire will be delighted to hear that he is in favour of full Scottish and Welsh independence.

Albert Owen: Earlier the hon. Gentleman referred to something similar to what I believe in, which is a confederal system in the UK. Is he now advocating that and not independence? Is that his party’s line?

Jonathan Edwards: As I said when I made those remarks, I always try to be helpful in my politics. My party’s position is independence for my country—

Albert Owen: Say it.

Jonathan Edwards: I have made that clear in my contribution. However, if I was a Unionist such as the hon. Gentleman, I would make exactly the same argument as him, and I commend him for it.
Before I was rudely interrupted by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), I was talking about the boundary review. Wales is about to lose more than a quarter of our political representation. To put that in context, Wales will experience the largest proportional cut in representation here while simultaneously being denied powers and responsibility for our devolved Government. If the boundary changes go through without our significantly equalising the Welsh settlement with that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, there will be a further democratic deficit. With that in mind, I will vote against the boundary changes unless we have the same powers as Scotland.
The constitution of the UK is rapidly changing. This is a time for bold and visionary acts in the finest traditions of this House. I am afraid that the Bill does not reflect the realities we face, nor does it respond to the practical problems that arise from tinkering with the settlement. We will endeavour to strengthen it during its passage so that our country is not treated like a second-class nation.

Christina Rees: It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), although I am not brave enough to call him a naughty boy.
When the Welsh Assembly was constituted in 1999, there were 20 conferred subject areas in which matters were to be determined by the Welsh people through their democratically elected representatives. One famous Welsh politician once said that
“devolution is a process, not an event”.
In the 17 years since the Assembly came into existence, there have been three constitutional settlements, which reflects the need to expand the powers of the Welsh Assembly because of the evolution of the legislative procedure in Wales. However, Members who served on the Welsh Affairs Committee during its inquiry into the draft Wales Bill sometimes wished that it was an event, not a process.
The fourth constitutional settlement—the draft Wales Bill introduced by the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), in October 2015—promised
“a stronger, clearer and fairer devolution settlement for Wales that will stand the test of time.”
It lasted for four months. On 29 February 2016, he announced that significant and substantial changes would be made to his baby. It may just have been serendipity,  but on the day that the Queen officially opened the fifth National Assembly for Wales, the current Secretary of State introduced the revised draft Wales Bill as the fifth constitutional settlement—or, rather, the second fourth attempt—to this House. He said:
“Welsh men and women want sensible legislation that reflects their priorities and allows them to live under laws of their own choosing. I have heard that instruction loud and clear, and I will deliver on it.”
Those were brave words, indeed.
I will not speak about the modification of the necessity test, ministerial consents or even the list of reserved matters, which has been reduced by some 15%. I will concentrate on the devolution of justice, which has been a major area of disagreement between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. There was no mention of devolution of jurisdiction in the draft Wales Bill. First Minister Carwyn Jones has made it known that he is in favour of the devolution of justice, and in 2015, in response to the draft Wales Bill, the Welsh Government argued for
“a Welsh legal jurisdiction that is distinct, but not separate from that of England.”
The new Bill does not propose the devolution of the justice system or of policing, but explicitly recognises that there is a “body of Welsh law”. It allows the Assembly to continue to modify the civil and criminal law to give effect to its legislation, but does not extend to legislating on substantial areas of criminal law, such as offences against the person. The new Bill creates a working group of officials from the Wales Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Welsh Government and the Lord Chief Justice’s office to monitor the situation. I welcome that because in Wales many areas of justice need clarification.
What matters to the people of Wales is whether they can get access to justice. I must admit that in the many campaigns during which I have knocked on doors, I have not found that devolution of the justice system has been a burning issue for constituents. Many of my constituents contact me because they cannot get access to legal advice, or have problems that they do not necessarily identify as legal issues. I am sure that many other Members find that their advice surgeries are inundated by constituents who are being denied access to justice.
It is fundamentally important that the justice system of England and Wales and the ever growing body of law in Wales are clear and accountable and work for the benefit of my constituents in Neath and those of other Welsh constituencies. It is not straightforward to understand the administrative justice landscape, which is made complex by the intertwining of devolved and non-devolved systems. Administrative justice is not only about citizens’ rights and redress but about learning from what has gone wrong and producing a vision of good public administration. It covers issues including disputes between the citizen and the state, and it is the cornerstone of social justice in Wales—a means by which citizens can have a voice other than through the ballot box, and by which public services can be held to account. It will lead to better results for citizens, less work for the appeals system, lower costs and, most importantly, social justice.
In areas such as housing, education, health and planning, Wales has its own administrative law, and the Welsh Government have responsibility for relevant justice policy  and daily administration. Clause 10 introduces justice impact assessments, meaning that the person in charge of an Assembly Bill must make a written statement about its potential impact on the justice system of England and Wales. Every regulatory Bill and statutory instrument introduced to this House and the other place that affects private, civil society or public services has—or should have—an impact assessment, which Opposition Members rightly often use to attack the proposed legislation and suggest amendments.
Most tribunals still operate on an England and Wales basis, but some are devolved—for example, the Agricultural Land Tribunal for Wales, the Adjudication Panel for Wales, the Mental Health Tribunal for Wales and the Residential Property Tribunal Wales. These devolved tribunals are supported by a single Welsh tribunal unit, and there are issues to consider concerning the status of the judiciary in devolved tribunals. They are not a fully integral part of the judiciary for England and Wales, and there is a lack of clarity concerning arrangements for their appointment, training, conduct and discipline. Statutory responsibility is not clear in all cases, and formal agreements are needed so that there is no room for doubt about roles and responsibilities.
The working group may wish to consider the following suggestions: that all devolved Welsh judicial appointments have a standard procedure agreed by the Welsh Government and the Judicial Appointments Commission, and that training, appraisal and disciplinary arrangements be of a standard as demanding as that elsewhere in the UK; that the Welsh Government work with the Ministry of Justice, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other UK Government Departments to ensure that data concerning redress systems can be separately identified and made available to elected representatives; and that the Lord Chief Justice appoint an existing Welsh judge to lead on devolved Welsh tribunals.
As the Bill passes through Parliament, efforts must be made to articulate how the body of Welsh law that it recognises forms part of the law of the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, with the primary purpose of making it accessible to practitioners and citizens alike.
The working group should also consider youth justice. When Charlie Taylor began his review of youth justice, the first place he visited was Hillside secure unit in my constituency. It is the only institution in the UK that offers placements for children who have suffered through multiple social service placements and/or who have got into trouble with the law. Children from all over the UK are placed at Hillside, but placements last only three months, which is not long enough to make a positive difference to a child’s life. The judiciary and social services departments often see Hillside as a place of last resort, but if children came there earlier in their troubled lives, they would not suffer the trauma of multiple placements and/or many visits to youth courts.
The work at Hillside is aimed at helping children turn their lives around and involves health assessments, psychological assessments, behaviour modification, academic and vocational education, the improvement of communication skills and children becoming self-sufficient before leaving to resume living in the community. It is an excellent example of partnership working, with  Neath Port Talbot Council, the police, police and crime commissioners, the Youth Justice Board, the Welsh Government and the UK Government working together for the benefit of troubled children.
Hillside wants to build a step-down unit on its site, so that children can make a smooth transition from living in a secure unit to living in independent accommodation such as flats and dormitories before they have to fend for themselves in the community. Hillside needs funding to build that unit, but it is not clear who is responsible for paying for it. Is it Neath Port Talbot Council, which is responsible for social services and whose funding has been cut by £50 million because of the austerity policies of the UK Tory Government? Is it the Welsh Government, who are responsible for education, health and housing, and whose funding has been cut by the UK Tory Government? Or is it the UK Government, who are responsible for police and youth justice? We need clarity.
Youth justice and access to comprehensive and coherent legal advice are two areas where the involvement of the Welsh Assembly and devolution to the Welsh Government have significantly contributed to rationalising the offer to citizens. The UK Government should look to those models of delivery for examples of how they can support the Welsh Government to create Welsh law within the parameters of current jurisdiction. I look forward to the passage of the Bill.

Susan Elan Jones: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on the next stage of Welsh devolution. We have heard a range of insightful contributions from Members from across the Chamber, including from those valiant souls who have served on the Welsh Affairs Committee and did much of the prelegislative scrutiny. We are deeply grateful to them all. Their inquiry into the Bill was quite an undertaking, and it is important to thank them properly for it.
Our debate has been very positive. I will speak about some contributions, and apologise that I will not be able to go into greater depth, but it would not be on for me to speak for 80 minutes—we do not believe in letting Ministers off the hook that way.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, was once an arch devo-sceptic, but I think he is thawing a bit—on 24 June he might even decide he likes the European Union. He discussed a range of constitutional issues, complete with theme park analogies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) gave a wide-ranging speech. He talked about visionaries, and about how devolution is about practical measures that improve people’s lives, stating that we always need to take the people of Wales with us. That is very important. He mentioned many other things, including the important debate about votes at 16. We will hear more on that on another day, I think.
The right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones)—a former Secretary of State, of course—raised a number of concerns about the reserved powers model and various aspects of income tax varying powers, along with the fact that no referendum has been promised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) gave a characteristically wide-ranging speech. I am amazed that he was around with that placard in  nineteen-fifty-whatever-it-was, but I believe him. As he discussed the current democratic discourse, and spoke of the Chartists and of Cymru Fydd, he reminded me—I will come on to this again later—that there has been a very proud Welsh Labour tradition of support for devolution, even if it has taken us a little time to bring everyone else on board.
The hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies) expressed concerns about the introduction of income tax potentially without a referendum, as well as concerns about levels of scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) raised the practical point of the importance of measuring our work by its impact on the lives of ordinary people, and how we can empower ordinary people in Wales.
The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) discussed numerous aspects of strengthening the Welsh Assembly. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) raised many issues, including the welcoming of the reserved powers model. He spoke of his fears of being taken to the Supreme Court if we do not get the Bill exactly right. Lord knows we need to get the Bill exactly right, because life is too short to keep coming back here every year.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) expressed what I think Sir Humphrey might have called “a few concerns”. He said that he felt the Welsh Assembly Government were “not capable of handling the powers they have”. That is his comment, not mine.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) spoke of his party’s long-standing support for devolution. He also raised a number of issues, including some very thoughtful reflections on justice impact assessments. I suspect we might hear a bit more about them, too.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), in a wide-ranging speech, was broadly supportive of the Bill. He expressed his support for a reserved powers model and for income tax levying powers. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised several issues, some of them quite technical, including those relating to the justice impact assessment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) gave a very thoughtful speech, raising a number of legal matters and the very important issue of access to justice. He paid tribute to the prelegislative scrutiny of the Welsh Affairs Committee and to the Welsh Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. He spoke about Jim Griffiths—we do not talk about Jim Griffiths often enough in this place—who was pro-devolution and pro-UK. I am sure that if he were around now, he would have been pro-EU as well.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) spoke about a fiscal framework. He said that he hoped the next referendum in Wales would be on independence “when the time comes”. How wonderfully vague! I think Plaid Cymru AMs were probably a little more direct when they were having their conversations with Neil Hamilton. The one thing I would say is that we can always rely on the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr to be a bit partisan, so he should expect a bit of that from me, too.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) gave a very powerful and moving speech about access to justice and legal advice, and how that is reflected in the Bill.
The process that has led to the Bill has been long, and, I think we could say, rather fraught. When we last met to discuss the draft Bill at the Welsh Grand Committee, I think we can say that it did not exactly command consensus. Lawyers, academics, members of civic society—all those people in Wales who write at length, speak at length and normally disagree at length—all agreed: they felt it was time we sent the Bill back. The previous Welsh Assembly, of course, was unanimous in its criticism.
We have come a long way since then. While not perfect, this Bill is a big improvement. There is, however, still work to be done to deliver the clear, well-founded devolution settlement recommended by the Silk commission. I hope the Secretary of State will proceed in the spirit of consensus to make sure we get the Bill right, because none of us, absolutely none of us, wants to be here again in a few years’ time. We owe it to the Welsh electorate to deliver a coherent settlement that will allow the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government to do their jobs and deliver for the people of Wales.
Welsh devolution has moved on at a rapid pace since Labour established the Assembly just 17 years ago. My late, departed constituent, one Owain Glyndwr of Corwen, would probably make the point that, as we have been waiting 600 years for our Welsh Parliament to reconvene, it is fair enough that we have been making up for lost time. But since then the Assembly has gained full lawmaking powers and what a delight that is.

Glyn Davies: I think Owain Glyndwr lived a significant part of his life in my constituency of Montgomeryshire—in Sycharth in Llansilin.

Lindsay Hoyle: Boundary changes are upon us, so who knows what might happen.

Susan Elan Jones: Yes, I am sure he did.
Since the establishment of devolution, the Assembly has gained full lawmaking powers. I know that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) discussed having the power to abolish the Welsh Assembly. Let us remind him and others that we had a referendum to establish full lawmaking powers. What a delight it was to look at parts of north-east Wales, which had voted against the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, and see them backing full lawmaking powers.
The powers have gone along, and critically, Wales has led the way, introducing the landmark Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013 and the landmark Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse & Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, the first of its kind in Europe. This Bill will now further enhance the Assembly’s powers by devolving a range of important new responsibilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West provided some great examples from history, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen mentioned Jim Griffiths. I wish to be allowed to be a little partisan for a few moments as a north Walian. I am thinking of people who have fought for this devolution over the years, some of them household names, some not. I mention some north Wales Labour MPs: Cledwyn Hughes who represented Anglesey; Goronwy Roberts of Caernarfon; Eirene White from Flintshire; Robert Richards, James Idwal Jones and Tom Ellis of Wrexham; Thomas William Jones and Will Edwards of Meirionnydd. These were  some of the people who carried the flame of devolution through very difficult times. Anyone who suggests that Welsh Labour is not behind this development is wrong. We look at our history, and we see that we are proud to death of the creation of the National Assembly and what it has achieved.
Finally, while I hope we will not need another Welsh Grand Committee—I do not say ever—to get this Bill sorted out, I trust that when we next meet in that Committee, we will be able to use both the official languages of Wales. I was pleased to see that the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee today supported that, as Members on the Opposition side have already done. As the Bill reminds us, English and Welsh have equal status in Wales, and there are Members of different parties who speak both languages. I hope that when the Minister gets to his feet, he can, as a Welsh speaker, throw his support behind our campaign to get the rules changed.
We look forward to the next stages of the Bill. I dare say there may well be a few amendments coming along, but we want the House and the Welsh Assembly to work as closely as we can together. At the end of the day, devolution for Wales means what it has always meant—how to get the best for our people in Wales.

Guto Bebb: It is a pleasure to close today’s debate and to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who made a passionate speech, highlighting and reminding us of the Labour Members who fought for devolution over the years. I am quite certain that most of those Labour Members would have been very supportive of this Wales Bill. I can offer my sympathetic support to the argument that the Welsh Grand Committee should be able to use the Welsh language, but as a Back Bencher I was not a very keen attendee of that Committee, so it might not be a power that I would use.
This has been an important and constructive debate. Although Members on both sides of the House have criticised what is in the Bill, it would be fair to say that there is a general feeling of support for it. I sometimes deplore the fact that the BBC argues that if it is attacked by people on both sides of an argument, it must be doing something right. However, having heard the speeches by the hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on the one hand and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) on the other, I somehow feel as though I am a member of the BBC in saying that if those two sides of the argument are both unhappy, we must clearly be doing something right.
It is important to touch on some of the main issues identified as changes to the draft Wales Bill, and it is important to note that when we published the Bill back in the autumn of 2015, the Wales Office was more than willing to allow for a period of pre-legislative scrutiny. That should not be seen as a weakness; it is a strength, reflecting how this place works. Many of the criticisms have been taken on board. Some were perhaps too strong or ill-conceived, but the Bill is stronger as a result of that pre-legislative scrutiny. I pay tribute to members of the Welsh Affairs Committee who did the hard work  of carefully considering the Bill clause by clause, and to the Committee Chair, who has done a fantastic job. His speech today was incredibly constructive, and he highlighted some people’s concerns, while also ensuring that they understand the genuine feeling that the aim of the Bill across the House is to make the devolution settlement work.
The change to a reserved powers model is important and fundamental, but I take issue with comments made by some Members, not least the hon. Members for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who highlighted time and again the important fact that the Bill does not propose a settlement that is identical to that in Scotland. When I was growing up, the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” in our house—I think it was owned by my grandmother—stated clearly, “For Wales, see England”. It appears that some criticism of the Bill from Plaid Cymru Members basically states, “For Wales, see Scotland”, which ignores the fundamental differences between the Scottish situation and the historical settlement there, and what we are trying to create in Wales. A settlement identical to the one in Scotland is not necessarily the right way to go, and it would not necessarily create a settlement that is fair to Wales and right in that context.

Hywel Williams: The Minister referred to the first edition of the “Encyclopaedia Britannica”, which said, “For Wales, see England”, but the real scandal is that when someone looked under England, there was virtually nothing about Wales. Our point is that a great deal in Scotland is pertinent to Wales.

Guto Bebb: As some Members have said, successive Secretaries of State have highlighted the fact that the latest change to the Welsh devolution settlement will end the issue once and for all, but I genuinely think that this Bill will create a long-standing settlement. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Welsh devolution settlement was voted for by the people of Wales back in 1999, it was welcomed by the then leader of Plaid Cymru as a significant change to the Welsh situation. We must recognise how far the devolution settlement in Wales has travelled since that point.
The hon. Members for Arfon, for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) highlighted the reserved powers model and the number of reservations, but those reservations have been put in place to move from a conferred powers model to a reserved powers model. The number of reservations has been reduced, although there is an argument about whether they should have been reduced by a larger amount, and I am certain that there will be an opportunity in Committee to reconsider some of the elements that have been reserved. I say to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr that I am pleased to offer a full two days of Committee with protected hours, which I hope will be sufficient to ensure his support for the time allocated for the Bill.

Karin Smyth: On air passenger duty, Bristol airport lies just outside my constituency of Bristol South, in which it started its life. We had a good debate in Westminster Hall on regional airports, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). Bristol airport employs  11,000 people and has 7 million passengers, many of whom are from Wales. Our relationship with Wales is obviously important for trade and commerce, notwithstanding the issue of bridge tolls, and I am grateful that we have been able to consider that. This issue is about the equalisation of air passenger duty across the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree?

Guto Bebb: Air passenger duty has been raised during the debate, and the fact that we are not proposing to devolve it has been criticised, although I think that that is right and proper. Silk made it clear that there is a need to devolve provisions for long-haul passengers, but there has been no consensus on that issue. I also ask what benefits such a measure would bring to north Wales in terms of the impact on the Welsh devolution financial settlement. At this time I think it is the right decision not to devolve air passenger duty, and I am happy to stand by that.
Many Members called for the list of reservations to be shorter, although it is important to point out that the list in the Scotland Act 1998 is not short either. It would, in my view, be impossible for the model of devolution that we are trying to create to result in a two or three-page list; a long list will always be necessary. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the aim was to secure a positive working relationship between this place and the Assembly, and I think it important to emphasise that. I believe that those reservations can be dealt with positively, and that we can work in a way that will benefit the people of Wales.
The hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and for Torfaen, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion highlighted the issue of the single legal jurisdiction. They made some positive comments about the Bill’s acknowledgement that there would be a body of Welsh law, but I think it imperative for us to understand the context of our decision.
We have consulted far and wide. We have consulted the legal profession in Wales, law colleges in Wales, legal departments in Wales and universities in Wales, and their clear response has been that it would be premature to move towards a separate legal jurisdiction. However, a working group is looking into the administrative processes involved in the development of a body of Welsh law, and I think it important that the Bill acknowledges the existence of Welsh legislation. We must try to develop a distinctive way of operating the administrative side of the legal system in Wales, rather than concentrating on the issue of a separate legal jurisdiction.
Some Members raised concerns about the justice impact assessments. I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear that the aim was not to prevent the Assembly from legislating, but to ensure that the impact of legislation was understood. The Welsh Assembly is already committed to looking at the impact of its legislation on the Welsh language and on equality issues, and I see nothing wrong with requiring it to look at the justice impact assessments as well. That, I think, is a proportionate request. It is a request that is acceded to by Westminster Departments when they legislate, and I think that it treats the Assembly as a mature body which is not only able to create law, but to understand the consequences of the development of that law.
I believe that when the aim of the Bill is clarified in Committee—if there is a need for such clarification—Members on both sides of the House will be assured that the justice impact assessment is not a necessity test. I should add that the article by Professor Richard Wyn Jones, which was quoted by numerous Members, showed a lack of understanding of the aims of the assessment, and, indeed, of who would be responsible for delivering and creating it. The responsibility will be passed on to the Assembly. It will be for the Assembly to develop justice impact assessments; there will be no dictation from Westminster.
Income tax is clearly a real issue for Conservative Members. In a powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire expressed his concern about the changes, and the issue was also touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). It has been suggested that the decision to omit the need for a referendum was in some way a betrayal of a manifesto commitment, but I take issue with that. There appear to be two versions of the Conservative manifesto, the Welsh version and the national version. Page 58 of the Welsh version, which I read, made clear that the promise could be questioned, because once a funding floor had been established, and we have delivered that funding floor, there would be an expectation—an expectation—that the Welsh Government would hold a referendum.
In my view, it is clear that the Welsh Government are prevaricating on whether they want income tax powers. I think it is absolutely clear to Conservative Members that provision for a tax settlement is essential, because the Bill is about clarity, accountability and responsibility for the Welsh Government. Yes, more powers are being devolved, but it is nevertheless essential for a degree of accountability to be passed on to the Welsh Government. I would argue that that accountability, which is understood by local councils and parish councils and by police and crime commissioners, is essential for good governance in Wales and for the Welsh Assembly. I would question whether this is indeed a breach of a manifesto commitment, but more importantly I would say the decision is justified in order to have a settlement which ensures that the people of Wales know that the Welsh Government and Assembly are responsible not just for spending in Wales but also for raising tax in Wales.

Jonathan Edwards: Does the Minister not therefore agree that it would be far easier to achieve those aims of accountability, incentivisation and clarity if 100% of income tax powers were devolved, as well as achieving the non-detrimental fiscal framework which is key to underpinning the devolution of that tax?

Guto Bebb: Once again the hon. Gentleman is putting ideology ahead of practicality. There is a significant difference between the population that lies along the Welsh border with England and the population on the border with Scotland. We have to move very carefully. This is a proportionate settlement that ensures there is a degree of tax accountability. He is possibly pushing his luck on this, because that ideology is not supported by the people of Wales.
We are moving in the right direction. This Government have achieved a funding floor, whereby we guarantee that spending in Wales will never be less than 115% of  spending in England. That guarantee was not forthcoming for 13 years of a Labour Government here in Westminster, and it has now been offered by this Government.

Nia Griffith: Does the Minister accept that it was in our 2010 manifesto? It was actually our Secretary of State who put it in our manifesto, so it came from us originally.

Guto Bebb: Well—[Interruption]—as the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) just said from the Treasury Bench, it took 13 years for it to become a Labour manifesto commitment, yet we have delivered it within a few months of having a majority Conservative Government. I think we should be very proud of the fact that we have delivered that funding floor.
Significant questions have been asked about the retention of the two necessity tests. Those two tests are justified. We are saying clearly that there is a necessity test where the Assembly is legislating on matters that affect England. That is the right thing to do because there is an issue of accountability and democracy, and I do not think the Assembly should be legislating on issues that relate to England without having the necessity test. In the same way, where the Assembly seeks to legislate on matters that relate to reserved powers, it is important to have that necessity test. It should be noted that that second test is also in the Scottish Bill.
The hon. Member for Llanelli asked whether there will be a disincentive for devolved ports to grow. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill is clear that the sum in question is a fixed sum at the point at which this Bill is passed. For example, if a port has a turnover of £14 million, it will be devolved; if it then grows, it will remain devolved. There is no prospect of a clawback. In relation to a trust port, the argument for retaining responsibility for Milford Haven in Westminster is clearly made by the fact that it is responsible for 62% of all our gas imports. But this is again a step in the right direction and if, for example, as a result of the Welsh Government or the Welsh Assembly’s activity there is growth in the ports of Holyhead or Newport, they will remain part of the responsibility of the Welsh Government. That is a step in the right direction.
The hon. Member for Arfon mentioned that there is a difference between the way we treat water services and sewerage. The reason why one is mentioned in the Bill and the other is not is because we are now equalising the situation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are also looking carefully at the situation in relation to water, and more information will be forthcoming at a future point.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West, highlighted issues in relation to energy. It is fair to say that this House has legislated to pass responsibility for wind farm developments to local authorities in Wales, and I think there should be a challenge to the Welsh Government as to why they do not trust local authorities with that responsibility. The Energy Act 2016, passed by this House, made that commitment to a local level of control on wind farms.  I think we should all challenge the Welsh Government as to why they are unwilling to trust the local people on an issue of that nature.
The capacity of power lines was also touched on. Again, clarity is required here. It is correct to say that there will be a limitation in that power lines going across the border at a higher level than 132 kV will remain the responsibility of Westminster whereas other such matters will be devolved. This, too, is a significant step in the right direction that will make a real difference for economic development in Wales.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion highlighted three matters on the reservation list and asked why they had been reserved. One was the Severn crossing, which I touched on in an intervention. We believe that it is inappropriate to devolve powers over the Severn bridges when three of the four landing points are in England. That would be taking devolution to an extent that would bring it into disrepute. He also asked about prostitution, which does not fall into the category of legislating for criminal behaviour. It falls under paragraph (4) of schedule 2, because the aim is to ensure that there is no possibility of changing the legislation. We had to place it separately within the legislation in order to respond to legal constraints. He also asked about heating and cooling systems, and the aim there is to ensure that everything to do with electricity and gas appliances is regulated in the same manner across England and Wales. Again, this is an effort to ensure clarity.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West asked about speed limits being devolved. It is important to point out that that was a recommendation by the Silk commission. The proposal was also part of the St David’s day process and there was agreement on it at that stage. Also, changes to speed limits in Wales are already being implemented at local authority level, so we believe that this is an appropriate change.
It is fair to say that this is a complex and difficult Bill. It has had a long gestation period, and it is been subject to significant scrutiny here in the House and in the Welsh Assembly, as well as by civic society in Wales.

Liz Saville-Roberts: A number of Members have asked about the timing in relation to the Justice in Wales working group. I would appreciate a response on whether we will get the report back from the working group before the Bill goes into Committee, because it will be relevant to our work there.

Guto Bebb: In my view, it is unlikely that the report will be produced before the Committee stage, but it is possible that it will be with us before Report and Third Reading. Obviously, decisions relating to Report and Third Reading will be made by the Leader of the House. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some certainty.
As I was saying, this is an important Bill. It clarifies the devolution settlement and puts into place the St David’s day agreement. It makes devolution clearer by putting in place a reserved powers model of devolution for Wales, with a clearer line between what is devolved and what is reserved, and I think that most people in Wales—especially the politicians—will welcome that clarity. It strengthens devolution through a further historic transfer of powers, and those powers will make a real difference to the lives of people in Wales. It will make devolution  fairer, and it removes the requirement for a referendum before the devolution of income tax in order to ensure that that accountability exists. It is fair to say that we have listened to the concerns raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and made significant changes to try to address those concerns. As a result, we have in front of us a much improved Bill that deserves to go before a Committee of this House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

WALES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Wales Bill:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee
2. Proceedings in the Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.
3. The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

  

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
5. Any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in Legislative Grand Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
Programming committee
7. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
8. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Question agreed to.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

delegated legislation

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 and 4 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6),

Companies

That the draft Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 23 May, be approved.

Electoral Commission

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will reappoint Alasdair Morgan as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 October 2016 for the period ending on 30 September 2020.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Question agreed to.

Air Passengers With Dementia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Barclay.)

Oliver Colvile: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to discuss the important provisions for air passengers with dementia. The last time I was fortunate enough to have an Adjournment debate in this House was last November, when I launched my campaign to save the humble hedgehog. Members may be interested to know that 37,000 people have now signed that petition and we have until August to get the figure up to 100,000. I am hopeful, and I would be grateful if anyone who thinks that a debate on that issue would be useful would sign the petition. I hope that this evening we will be able to make the same amount of excellent progress on dealing with dementia as we have on saving Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle.
Let me give hon. Members the background on dementia. The word “dementia” is scary to many people, conjuring up all sorts of frightening thoughts and visions. Everyone knows someone who has been affected by dementia. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) recently said that one of his greatest fears was to end up suffering from it. The Alzheimer’s Society states that the term “dementia”
“describes a set of symptoms that may include memory loss and difficulties with thinking, problem-solving or language”.
A person with dementia will have severe cognitive symptoms, including: day-to-day memory loss; difficulties concentrating, planning or organising; difficulties conversing; problems judging distances; losing track of their orientation; and changes in their mood. It is a progressive illness, and gradually those symptoms will become more severe. It was predicted in 2015 that about 850,000 people in the UK were suffering from dementia. One in 14 people over the age of 65 suffers from the illness, but it is not just over-65s who suffer from it; people can also get it when they are in their 40s.
While scientists around the world, and especially in the UK, investigate how to combat this condition, excellent work has been taking place to help those with the illness to live lives that are as unrestricted as possible. That is where this evening’s Adjournment debate topic comes in. Inspirational work has been taking place to help people with dementia who travel by air. I wish to pay a special tribute to Ian Sherriff from Plymouth University for all his hard work, and not only on this angle of the dementia debate—I am also thinking of his wider work on helping those suffering with this illness. Ian is the chairman of the air transport group, which was set up by the Prime Minister with a remit to gain a better understanding about people who have dementia and travel by air. As one can imagine, this situation can be quite difficult. If one has an elderly parent or an elderly relative who needs to take an aircraft somewhere, they need to be looked after, and we need to make sure that that happens. The air transport group comprises experts, representatives from airlines, cabin crew members, airports, the Alzheimer's Society, Plymouth, Exeter and Bournemouth Universities and security experts. It is a truly diverse, cross-section of people who have first-hand experience of dealing with those who suffer from dementia.  The group will send an interim report to the Prime Minister’s dementia friendly communities challenge group before the end of this year. I know that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) is well aware of the excellent work that the air transport group has been doing, having met its members and myself in his Department towards the end of last year, and indeed on several other occasions. We are all incredibly grateful for the time that he has put into this and the interest he has taken.
Airports play an important role in helping people with dementia when they travel. Gatwick airport has been revolutionary in the way that it helps passengers with this condition. People who suffer from hidden disabilities, such as dementia, mental health conditions or autism, should be able to live a full life without fear of losing their dignity. That is why I am so pleased with Gatwick airport and the work that it has undertaken to help those living with hidden disabilities. I urge other airports around the country—and indeed internationally—to take a keen interest in this and to deliver some kind of action as well.

Jim Shannon: I had to rush to get to this debate, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My brother was very seriously injured in a motorbike accident and has brain injuries. Last week, my mother went with him to ensure that he got special attention on the plane and at the airport. By the way, there is a legal obligation on airports to look after anyone who is mentally or physically disabled. There are many people out there who do not know that. In bringing this very important debate to the Chamber for consideration, the hon. Gentleman has raised awareness of this whole issue. When the Minister responds, perhaps he will confirm that there is a legal obligation on airports. Legally, the airports have to help these people get their luggage checked in, and we need to ensure that they do that.

Oliver Colvile: The hon. Gentleman makes a very strong case. As he knows, I sit on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and this is a discussion that we should have at some stage.
I am told that 80% of workers at Gatwick airport are dementia friendly. Indeed, I am very keen to become a dementia friend myself, but I have a bit of work to do before that will happen. Ian Sherriff has said that he will help me with that.
Gatwick airport has come up with an option for people travelling with hidden disabilities to have a discreet sign, which demonstrates that they may need additional support as they travel through the airport.

Henry Smith: I apologise for missing the first part of my hon. Friend’s speech. I was caught out by the early end of the Second Reading debate on the Wales Bill. I pay tribute to Gatwick airport in my constituency for its lanyard scheme, which means that those with hidden disabilities and dementia can be better assisted on their travels through the airport. Does he agree that the airport leads the way in these enhancements for passengers?

Oliver Colvile: Absolutely. My hon. Friend has got that 100% right. Gatwick has been leading the way, but it will be very interesting to see how many emails and letters I get from other airports around the country and in Northern Ireland after this debate. As he says, the lanyard initiative is incredibly helpful, as it identifies those who are in need of help.
Help could also include: giving passengers more time to prepare at check-ins and security; allowing passengers to remain with their family at all times; giving passengers a more comprehensive briefing on what to expect from their travelling experience; and helping passengers to read a departure board or sign. Those are all about patience, and we must try to ensure that we can deliver that sort of help. These passengers may be low on confidence because of their conditions so these subtle yet highly helpful improvements will help passengers to get through what can be the difficult process of travelling through an airport.
As the House will know, national dementia awareness week was last month and the Alzheimer’s Society was on hand at the airport to discuss dementia with travellers and carers. That kind of education should be rolled out across the country. Today, I am calling on other airports across the UK to implement such a strategy of engagement with travellers.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister does not mind me speaking about this, but it is my sincere hope that should Plymouth City airport be reopened—I know that his Department is currently studying the viability of such a project—it will become the first regional dementia-friendly airport. I hope that he does not mind me taking this opportunity to press him on that.
I am delighted to report that there are airlines that are taking the issue of flying with dementia very seriously. Indeed the provision for passengers suffering with dementia are covered by both long and short-haul airlines, such as Virgin Atlantic and EasyJet. I am acutely aware that EasyJet is based in Crawley, in the constituency of my hon. Friend.

Henry Smith: I should like to pay tribute to EasyJet, whose largest hub is at Gatwick airport, and to Virgin Atlantic, which is headquartered in my constituency. I am fortunate to have such responsible airline companies operating from my constituency.

Oliver Colvile: Flying can be an extremely stressful and uncomfortable experience, both for passengers who suffer from hidden disabilities and for their carers. I pay tribute to carers, as they have an awful lot of work to do to try to make sure that their patients—if that is the right word—are looked after and do not become flustered and so on.
As I mentioned, the lanyard initiative began about a month ago, so I have not seen any data showing the impact of the scheme, but I believe that it will be highly beneficial for travellers. Airports and airlines that show some understanding of the problem will do very much better, and they may want to put a sticker on their products saying that they operate a dementia-friendly service.
Moving forward, my hon. Friend the Minister may want to work with his international counterparts to formulate a globally recognised card or symbol that  could be carried around in a passport to subtly tell airport staff and cabin crew that the traveller may need extra assistance. That is something that could be done whether we stay in or leave the European Union next month.
I was delighted to see research and a proposal by Dr Alexis Kirke of Plymouth University, which is based in my constituency, on the in-flight experience for accompanied travellers with dementia. Passenger announcements, in-flight entertainment and other ways to help travellers with hidden disabilities can go a long way towards easing the burden of travel. Proposals include making sure that announcements made during the flight are not distorted—for example, people can wait to make them until the plane has levelled off. Cabin crew are highly trained, but it is helpful to go that extra mile for someone who may be particularly distressed as a result of their condition. Music is also an effective way of helping a passenger with dementia to manage their mood. Perhaps we could have dementia-friendly entertainment systems on flights.
Ian Sherriff has informed me that the air transport group has even deployed its own version of a secret shopper, whereby a passenger suffering from dementia travelled on a flight with their carer. From what I have been told, the passenger and the carer were treated like royalty, and that is something that everyone across the industry should aspire to work towards. However, around the world, there is still much to do to ensure that hidden disabilities are treated with the same urgency and caution as physical disabilities. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for taking a very keen interest in this, and doing a great deal of work on it.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I have certainly been sent an awful lot of information, and I have been lobbied very hard in the past few days since the announcement on the scheduling of this debate, and I am sure that he has been lobbied too. Will he spell out the kind of help that his Department can give to the air transport group? I should be delighted if he updated the House on his Department’s progress on helping air travellers with dementia. Perhaps he could subsequently tell us how we can try to encourage the train companies to do the same thing. As I have suggested, I should be grateful if he looked further into an internationally recognised card for travellers with hidden disabilities. Will he make a commitment to mandate that all airports in the UK become at the very least hidden disability aware?
I have been involved in the fight against dementia since I was first elected to Parliament in 2010. I am delighted to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, and I have sought to become heavily involved in the issues surrounding hidden disabilities such as dementia, mental health and autism.
This is a very personal issue for me. I had a stepmother who was taken into a home because she was suffering from dementia. Sadly, she died within the past five years. She was incredibly bright, had served at Bletchley Park and got a degree at Oxford University in the 1930s. One of the things that was very interesting about her was that while she was working at Bletchley Park, she followed a man called General Kesselring, who was in charge of the north African campaign for the Germans during the war. He was put on trial at Nuremburg and sentenced to death. The court then got hold of her  translations and worked out that he probably did not know too much of what he was doing under his own command, and his sentence was therefore commuted to life imprisonment. Before my stepmother died, the Prime Minister sent her a plaque commemorating her activities at Bletchley Park.
My city, Plymouth, has been at the forefront of dementia research and Plymouth University has just employed a PhD student on the very topic of air travel for people with dementia. I understand that she will be producing a dissertation of 80,000 words. Do I want to read 80,000 words? Nevertheless, I am sure it will be incredibly good. The House will be delighted to know that my contribution will be much less than that this evening.
I hope that over time the UK will ensure that all people with hidden disabilities are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. After all, we all grow older and we do not know whether we may suffer from dementia in the future. We must come to terms with the fact that long-term care for the elderly will probably affect all of us. I shall be interested to hear how the Government intend to move forward. The Secretary of State for Health has done an extremely good job on that. I look forward to hearing the response of my hon. Friend the Minister.

David Amess: Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) for allowing me to intervene briefly.
My wife was assaulted by a dementia patient on a British Airways flight exactly a year ago. She will not be pleased that I am raising the matter. I will not go into the precise details, but it seems so relevant after what my hon. Friend has said. This time last year we were all gathering here after the general election. One of our daughters who lives in America was graduating the day after the election, so it was a bit stressful to get out to Charleston, where she is. My wife had to go ahead and I followed, and it was all wonderful. My wife was recovering from breast cancer which, thank goodness, is all right, so she was in a pretty emotional state.
Because we had been told that there would be a hung Parliament, I thought we might be returning slowly together, but because there was a Conservative majority, I had to get back more quickly than my wife. Then the nightmare started. She took a night flight with British Airways. She was at the back of the plane with two empty seats next to her. The plane was delayed and eventually, after a kerfuffle, an elderly gentleman was brought on to the plane somehow and was seated next to my wife. I will put it like that. All I will say is that when everyone nodded off, she woke up and was assaulted. I am not going to enlarge on exactly what went on.
If Lord King were alive today, he would be horrified at the way that British Airways has dealt with this complaint. My wife is not someone to make a fuss, but I am. I will not let this matter drop; I shall deal with it through the small claims court. I made the complaint in June and did not get a decent reply from the executive chairman until 7 October. That is disgraceful.
The police, whom I eventually dealt with, said:
“You will be aware from our previous correspondence, that having liaised with British Airways, we were able to identify the passenger who is alleged to have assaulted”
my wife. They continued:
“We established that this male passenger is ninety years old and suffers from dementia. As part of our investigation we needed to ascertain if the suspect was fit to be dealt with by police, and further to that, to establish whether he would have an understanding of the allegation made against him.
We have since been provided with medical evidence that indicates the suspect’s dementia impacts on his ability to complete even basic mental tasks and that his dementia is likely to have impacted on his behaviour on the day of the assault.
In addition to the medical evidence, we were also able to refer to knowledge held about the suspect through previous police contact with him. The suspect has previously been reported as a missing person, and on that occasion, was located after members of the public reported him lost, disorientated and confused, wandering residential areas.”
The chairman of British Airways wrote:
“I hope you will appreciate that British Airways can only know details of a passenger’s medical condition if the passenger, or some other person acting on the passenger’s behalf, discloses this information to us. Having checked the booking record in relation to this passenger, no disclosure of any medical condition was made.
In the reports from the ground staff at Los Angeles and the cabin crew operating this flight, there was nothing in the passenger’s behaviour or bearing, other than he was obviously very elderly, to give any reason to believe that he suffered from any mental health issues. As such he was treated in the same way as any other passenger”.
It is absolute rubbish.
Then there is the final insult:
“Even had British Airways been aware of any medical condition affecting this passenger, it would have been inappropriate, and possibly in breach of data protection legislation, to disclose details to any other passenger. Additionally, we do not ordinarily consult with passengers as to who may be sat next to them during a flight.”
So there we are: my wife, at the back of the plane, is the mug. This is our national carrier—the best airline in the world, as far as I am concerned—and that is the quality of the response to someone who has been democratically elected. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport on introducing the debate, and I am totally with him on his campaign.

Robert Goodwill: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on securing this debate about provision for air passengers with dementia. This important issue touches many of us gathered here this evening through our friends and family, and certainly through our constituents. I must admit to encouraging my hon. Friend to apply for the debate because it is important that we get the subject raised on the Floor of the House. The debate gives me an opportunity to say why the Government take this issue so seriously.
Before I do, however, let me briefly address the disturbing case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I will not comment on the case in detail, but it does underline why it is so important that patients with this type of problem who are travelling,   particularly on long-distance journeys, have a carer with them. In almost every case when I have meet someone in relation to our role of helping people with dementia, that person is accompanied by a spouse, family member or friend who can help them. From what I have heard, it verges on the irresponsible to expect somebody with such a condition to fend for themselves on these flights.

Jim Shannon: I am aware of the case of a lady with a baby who was travelling with her mother who had dementia. This was not long after she had given birth and she was quite traumatised by being on the plane. When she was not able to cope, the airline staff had to come to help the mother and the child, so there is an onus on airline staff to be able to assist the carer as well.

Robert Goodwill: Yes, absolutely. Many airlines and airports are taking the training of staff very seriously indeed.
I will start by briefly going through the statistics, some of which we have heard already. We live in an ageing world, and we Europeans are living ever longer. A Eurostat survey forecasts that in 2040, if current trends continue, 25.5% of Europe’s population will be 65 or over. In 2015, that figure was only 16%. With an ageing population, we will face new challenges. It has been estimated that more than 850,000 people in the United Kingdom suffer from dementia, and that figure is expected to rise to over 1 million by 2025. While dementia is usually linked to old age, it is not, as we have heard, solely an age-related condition. Indeed, today in our country, over 40,000 people under 65 years of age live with dementia.
Those are big numbers, but how do they relate to air travel? As we have heard, the word “dementia” is used to describe a set of symptoms that affect the brain. These symptoms may include memory loss or difficulties with thinking, problem solving or language, all of which will lead to everyday life becoming more and more challenging. However, suffering from dementia does not, and should not, mean that one should automatically cease to enjoy the activities we are all used to. Generation after generation, we are travelling more, exploring the world and gathering new experiences. For some, it is a lifestyle, but if one gets diagnosed with dementia, there could be a daunting decision to be made, either personally or by one’s family, to stop travelling altogether or to face a travel experience in all its complexity. For dementia sufferers, air travel, in particular, can be confusing, unnerving and even frightening. Crowded terminals, loud noises, queues, security checks, and armed policemen and women are enough to confuse a healthy person from time to time, never mind a person with a hidden disability. The term “hidden disability” is used to cover a wide variety of conditions that are not evident, such as dementia, autism, learning difficulties and hearing loss. According to Civil Aviation Authority research, as many as 7% of all British people are potentially avoiding air travel because of a hidden disability; we would like to get that number down to 0%.
On helping us to reach this goal, there is a piece of European legislation called regulation EC 1107/2008, which concerns the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility—PRMs—when travelling by air. The aim of this regulation is to ensure that such people have the same opportunities for accessing air travel as  non-disabled people, and that they have the same rights to free movement, freedom of choice, and non-discrimination. To ensure that that happens, airports and airlines are required to provide assistance that is appropriate to the needs of the passenger and that enables them to move through the airport while they travel. A person with reduced mobility is defined in the regulation as
“any person whose mobility when using air transport is reduced due to any physical disability (sensory or locomotor, permanent or temporary), intellectual disability or impairment, or any other cause of disability, or age”.
The regulation does not differentiate between physical and non-physical conditions, so assistance should take into account the needs of the person who has requested it.
For passengers with a physical disability, assistance needs are quite often visible and straightforward to provide—for example, a person who uses a wheelchair will require a wheelchair and a person to push it. However, with hidden disabilities, the needs of passengers vary widely, and the provision of the service could require adaptability from the provider. Some passengers may need only information and reassurance, while others may require a one-to-one escort through the airport. This can make planning challenging for service providers. In 2015, the CAA engaged with airports on the provision of assistance to passengers with hidden disabilities and found a wide variation in practices and standards. While it was acknowledged by all that there was no “one size fits all” solution, it was concluded that airports would benefit from sharing best practice among themselves, which will help airports to standardise some practices and plan their service effectively.
Furthermore, it was concluded that it would be beneficial for the CAA to clarify what it views as the obligations under the PRM regulation. I am glad to say that the authority has been working hard on that issue and has engaged with a broad set of charities during the past year to develop guidance on the minimum expected standards and practices that all airports should adopt to comply with the regulation. The CAA has published that guidance for consultation, which is due to end in July.

Jim Shannon: I made some investigations before coming to the Chamber and understand that airline companies and airports have a legal obligation to ensure that every person with a hidden disability is looked after totally and absolutely. Is that the Minister’s understanding as well?

Robert Goodwill: Transport is an international pastime and occupation, so there is a European regulation. As I have said, it applies not only to the physical disabilities of wheelchair users, the blind and people with sight disability, but to people with hidden disabilities. That is the whole point of the clarification that has been laid down, and the CAA is keen to ensure that airlines and airports discharge their obligations under the legislation.
The CAA guidance will ensure that a level of standardisation is adopted by all airports, which will bring huge benefits to this group of passengers. It sets standards not only for the actual assistance that is delivered, but for the information given to passengers before travelling and the level of training that staff are expected to be given.
The CAA has reported that the guidance has been welcomed by the airports and some of the obligations in it have already been implemented. For example, many airports—including Belfast City, Heathrow, Gatwick and Birmingham—have introduced guidance, in the form of videos, leaflets and pictures, that is specifically aimed at passengers with hidden disabilities. With that guidance, passengers and their carers can familiarise themselves with the processes beforehand, which has the potential to relieve the anxiety that some feel when facing an unknown environment. When I spoke at the Airport Operators Association dinner on 1 March, I made the issue the major theme of my comments and made a call for action from the airports.
Many airports already allow passengers with hidden disabilities to use fast-track security or are prepared to open separate security screening for those passengers upon request. Security screening has been identified in the past as one of the most stressful parts of the journey, which has the possibility of causing immense distress and anxiety.
There are other great examples of individual airports going above and beyond minimum obligations. For example, as we have heard, Gatwick airport has introduced discreet lanyards for passengers with hidden disabilities. The lanyards are a means for a person with hidden disability, such as dementia, to communicate their condition to the airport staff. That, combined with Gatwick’s commitment to provide appropriate training to all front-of-house staff, shows that there is willingness in the industry to encourage this group to travel more. More than 80% of Gatwick’s front-line staff have received dementia friends and dementia champions training, and that training is being delivered at one of this country’s biggest airports.
Gatwick is by no means the only example. Manchester airport already has special wristbands for autistic children. Norwich airport has signed an autism charter to become an autism-friendly airport. Virgin Atlantic is committed to considering the effects that long-haul flights might have on passengers with dementia, and easyJet has provided outstanding customer service to dementia sufferers, thanks to its commitment to staff receiving dementia awareness training as part of its special assistance training package.
The industry has truly embraced the challenge, and we want to see the good work spread across the sector. The UK can be proud to say that it leads in this area. We have recognised how the airport experience can feel intimidating for people with hidden disabilities. The UK and specifically the CAA, together with a few proactive UK airports, have been first to grasp that and to take action. Other European Union countries will surely follow our lead in due course.
Many of our country’s airports have reached out to the disabled charities to learn more about how they can make the experience better for people with hidden disabilities, and I strongly encourage the continuation and strengthening of this relationship. For example, the Alzheimer’s Society does a magnificent job in promoting  awareness of dementia and could be an invaluable aid to the airports when they plan services.
Another group that I must mention for its substantial effort in tackling this issue is the air transport group, chaired by Ian Sherriff of Plymouth University, which is part of the Prime Minister’s rural dementia taskforce. The group, which was founded last year, has already shown remarkable commitment and speed in its task of promoting awareness in this field and encouraging travel.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Sarah Newton.)

Robert Goodwill: The air transport group has engaged with the CAA, the airports and the airlines, and is now looking at the wider tourism field. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, Plymouth University is funding a PhD student to research dementia and travel over a three-year period. A substantial amount of evidence is expected as a result of her work, and I would be delighted to meet her as part of the process. In addition to Plymouth, Exeter and Bournemouth Universities are also involved in the work of the group.
There truly is momentum behind this work and I am glad to see such progress being made. As I said, we are a leading nation in Europe in this field, but we need to keep the momentum going. The CAA’s guidance helps in setting the standards for airports and similar guidance is planned for the airlines in the near future. I encourage every operator in the industry to engage with dementia passengers and organisations, and to strive not for the base minimum, but for excellence beyond.
My hon. Friend mentioned the provision of a globally recognised card, which is a good idea. A pin badge might be even more discreet, while still being able to be seen. Indeed, people with dementia could be recognised in such a way and given special help not only in airports, but in the retail sector and in other aspects of our everyday life where it would be helpful to know, discreetly, if a person has dementia and may need a little more help if they appear confused. We certainly need to raise that idea through the European Union or the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which has an even wider reach.
As I stated at the beginning of my speech, there are hundreds of thousands of people with dementia in this country. Getting the assistance standards right, and raising awareness of what is available and what to expect when travelling, will unlock the huge potential that this group could bring to the industry. Encouraging dementia sufferers to travel in this way will make their lives and those of their carers, for whom a break from the routine can be a lifeline, that much richer, and that is worth fighting for. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and providing an opportunity to discuss this important and, to many, very personal issue.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.